economic analysis of proposed forest service timber sales
TRANSCRIPT
University of Montana University of Montana
ScholarWorks at University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana
Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School
1983
Economic analysis of proposed Forest Service timber sales| A Economic analysis of proposed Forest Service timber sales| A
case study of the Ketchikan salvage sale, Flathead National case study of the Ketchikan salvage sale, Flathead National
Forest Forest
Terry L. Egenhoff The University of Montana
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Egenhoff, Terry L., "Economic analysis of proposed Forest Service timber sales| A case study of the Ketchikan salvage sale, Flathead National Forest" (1983). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 2134. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/2134
This Professional Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected].
COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUBSISTS. ANY FURTHER REPRINTING OF ITS CONTENTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE AUTHOR.
MANSFIELD LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA DATE : I 19 8 3
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
OF PROPOSED FOREST SERVICE TIMBER SALES
A CASE STUDY OF THE KETCHIKAN SALVAGE SALE,
FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST
By
Terry L. Egenhoff
B.A., Eastern Oregon State College, 1978
Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA
1983
Approved by;
Chairman, Board of Examiners
Graduate Saffob.
.5-- 3̂ Date
UMI Number: EP34477
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMT Oknwtitton RMMiing
UMI EP34477
Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES iv
INTRODUCTION 1
NORTH END SALVAGE SALES AND APPEALS 6
CRITICAL HABIT AND CUMMULATIVE IMPACTS 9
MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE AND LODGEPOLE PINE; ECOLOGY AND ECONOMICS 13
Mountain Pine Beetle Control History 13
Lodgepole Pine/Mountain Pine Beetle Ecology 14
Forest Pest Economics 18
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 21
EAR Analysis 21
New Approach 24
Methods and Assumptions 26
Results 30
Discussion 32
CONCLUSIONS 37
APPENDIX A: STUMPAGE VALUE ESTIMATES 43
Initial Entry Stumpage Value 43
Re-entry Stumpage Values ..... 47
APPENDIX B: ROAD COST ESTIMATES 60
Initial Road construction 61
Future Road Reconstruction 65
APPENDIX C: SALE PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION COST ESTIMATES 68
APPENDIX D: SITE PREPARATION AND FUEL TREATMENT COST ESTIMATES 72
APPENDIX E: PLANTING, STOCKING SURVEY AND PRECOMMERCIAL THINNING COST ESTIMATES 77
lii
APPENDIX F: PRESENT VALUE 80
REFERENCES 84
MAP pocket
iv
LIST OF TABLES
A-1. Initial Entry Benefits 47
A-2. Scheduled Harvest Activity 50
A-3. Projected Volume Species Composition and d.b.h. for Future Harvests, by Unit 53
A-4. Future Harvest Volume by Species 55
A-5. Weighted Lumber Prices for Future Harvests 56
A-6. Derivation of Current Stumpage Value for Future Harvest 57
A-7. Projected Future Stumpage Values 59
A-8. Re-entry Benefits 59
B-1 . Initial Entry Road Costs 64
B-2. Re-entry Road Costs 66
B-3. Total Road Costs 67
C-1. Sale Preparation and Administration Cost Classes 69
C-2. Sale Preparation Costs . 70
C-3. Sale Administration Costs 71
D-1. Site Preparation and Fuel Treatment Cost Classes 74
D-2. Site Preparation and Fuel Treatment Costs 76
E-1 . Planting Costs 78
E-2. Stocking Survey Costs 79
E-3. Precommercial Thinning Costs 79
F-1 . Total Expected Costs 81
F-2. Discounted Total Costs 82
F-3. Discounted Total Benefits 83
1
INTRODUCTION
Timber management on U.S. Forest Service land often conflicts,
to some degree, with nontimber resources and/or the desires of certain
interest groups. The use of economic analysis as a decision criterion
for proposed Forest Service timber sales is not yet a well defined
process. This paper presents one method of economic analysis for the
evaluation of proposed Forest Service timber sales, and discusses the
integration of quantifiable timber management economics with other
resource impacts which may be difficult to quantify economically.
While this study was prepared for the special case of the Ketchikan
Salvage Sale proposed in northwestern Montana, the methods developed
here are fairly easy to employ — only basic algebra and a hand-held
calculator were used — and should be applicable to other proposed
Forest Service timber sales.
The Ketchikan Sale was designed to salvage roadless timber
stands recently involved in a bark beetle outbreak, and has generated
considerable controversy. Due to the unique condition and location of
the sale area, different public constituencies have very divergent
views as to how the Forest Service should react to the beetle in
festation. The area is critical habitat for grizzly bear and gray
wolf, which are officially threatened and endangered species. Wild
life biologists and conservationists argue that various development
activities in the vicinity increase the need for the Forest Service to
2
maintain its remaining roadless areas in a wild condition. The
Forest Service and those oriented toward timber production hold
that the area should be roaded and logged in order to utilize dead
trees before they lose their timber value, to limit the bark beetle
epidemic, and to reduce the fire hazard resulting from the dead trees.
This may appear to be a fairly typical conflict faced by the
Forest Service in attempting to manage public lands for "multiple
use" where timber production and other resources tend to be mutually
exclusive. However, the economics of this particular sale further
complicate the issue. The Forest Service prepared an economic analysis
of the proposed sale which concluded that the sale would have a nega
tive net present value. Opponents of the sale were perplexed as to
why the Forest Service should damage critical wildlife habitat while
losing money managing the timber resource. The Forest Service dis
missed its own analysis, claiming that the logging industry would
"bid up" the sale to a point which would make it a positive economic
investment.
That assuption, based on recent bidding activity for local
Forest Service timber sales, was the source of much confusion re
garding the economics of the Ketchikan Sale. Forest Service timber is
sold at auction to the highest bidder, subject to a minimum bid. The
minimum bid is derived through a detailed appraisal and residual
pricing system which attemptps to determine the selling value of the
lumber that could be obtained from the sale, less all costs (including
profit) necessary to convert the sale stumpage to finished lumber (see
page 23). The problem here is that actual bids for Forest Service
timber in recent years have often been several times higher than the
3
bids predicted by the Forest Service appraisal. Even though many
sales on the Flathead National Forest had recently been appraised
at low or even negative values, several had sold for relatively high
bids. Regardless of the reasons for this "bidding up" (which may in
clude such things as inaccurate estimates of milling costs, scaling
measurements which underestimate milling efficiency, or bidder specu
lations that lumber values would significantly appreciate over the
contract period), the fact that the Forest Service could not accurately
predict the selling value of the sale naturally would lead to dif
ficulties in the economic analysis prepared by the Forest Service for
the sale.
The analysis presented here will attempt to reduce the confusion
surrounding.the economics of the Ketchikan Sale. Two fundemental
flaws in the Forest Service analysis will be dealt with: inability
to predict accurately the selling value of stumpage, and failure to
include certain timber management costs resulting from the sale.
Benefits and costs of timber management will be considered over one
full rotation (100 years), rather than the 20 year period used by
the Forest Service. The results of this analysis show that the
Ketchikan Sale would be an investment with very negative returns in
terms of timber management economics.
The Ketchikan Sale may be unique in many respects, but similar
conflicts involving deficit salvage sales and noncommodity resources
on Forest Service land may occur in the future. A recent study, using
very conservative assumptions, concluded that a great deal of Forest
Service timber is already being sold at a loss (Barlow, et al, 1980).
Section 6k of the 1976 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) is inter
4
preted by some authorities as mandating economic efficiency — benefits
equal or exceed costs — in Forest Service timber management (Stoel,
1978; Krutilla and Haigh, 1978), but the implementing regulations only
call for cost efficiency — least cost — in meeting assigned pro
duction goals [36 CFR 219.12 (b) (3) (iii)]. The Forest Service
Northern Region Draft Plan states that nationally assigned timber
production goals cannot be met unless salvage sales are more aggres
sively pursued and existing roadless areas are accessed with capital
funds (not timber receipts) at a greatly accelerated rate (USDA 1981c).
This means that capital funds must be used to subsidize timber sales
where road costs exceed the value of harvestable timber; an econo
mically inefficient practice. Salvage sales are excepted from im
portant restrictions placed on timber management activity by the NFMA
regarding size of opening, prohibition of timber harvest on "marginal
lands," prohibition of timber harvest before culmination of mean
annual increment, and prohibition of timber harvest above the sus
tained yield-allowable cut level. Thus, salvage sales could be used
to circumvent NFMA constraints which were designed to insure economic
efficiency of, and to protect nontimber resources impacted by, Forest
Service timber harvesting.
Such items suggesting future policy debates over Forest Service
deficit salvage sales will be discussed after examining the economic
analysis of the Ketchikan Sale. However, the geopgraphic, historic,
and ecological contexts within which the area must be managed will
be discussed before presenting the economic analysis. The wildlife
habitat issue and the cummulative developmental pressures in the
vicinity are largely beyond the scope of any economic analysis of a
5
timber sale and must be considered as seperate factors in making
a land management decision on the salvage sale proposal. While the
salvage sale proposal implies that insect damage can be controlled
and economic loss can be reduced, the ecology of the particular
insect and forest ecosystem must be understood before such claims
can be made or evaluated.
6
NORTH END SALVAGE SALES AND APPEALS
In the spring of 1980, the Flathead National Forest released
a controversial Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) for four pro
posed timber sales on the Glacier View Ranger District. The four
sales were collectively titled the North End Salvage Sales and in
cluded: Frozen Lake, 350 acres; Ketchikan, 5,800 acres; Thoma, 180
acres; and Trail, 390 acres (USDA, 1980a). The sale areas are located
within the Mt. Hefty, Tuchuck, and Thompson-Seaton roadless areas,
all of which were recommended for nonwilderness allocation by the RARE
II process. The North End Salvage areas are on or very near the
Canadian border and mostly within the Trail Creek Drainage, which is
a tributary of the North Fork of the Flathead River, a national Wild
and Scenic River. The areas are at the very northern end of the
Flathead National Forest. The Kootanai National Forest lies to the
west, the North Fork of the Flathead River flows south on the east
side of the areas, and private land lies along the North Fork and
Trail Creek, to the east and southeast. The North Fork of the Flathead
River also forms the western boundary of Glacier National Park (see
map).
The EAR considered several alternatives designed to salvage dead
and "high risk" lodge pole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas var. latifolia
Englemann) in response to a recent mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus
pondersae Hopkins) outbreak. A controversy arose in reaction to plans
7
which called for building more than 20 miles of road and cutting timber
in some 6,720 acres or roadless areas considered by many wildlife
biologists to be critical habitat for the officially threatened
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilus) and endangered gray wolf
(Canus lupus). One sale alone, the Ketchikan Sale, was to cover
5,800 acres of roadless area and included 16.1 miles of road. The
controversy was exacerbated by the economic analysis completed by the
Flathead National Forest, which indicated that the Ketchikan Sale
alone would amount to a net present worth loss of $880,000 (USDA,
1980a).
On August 6, 1980, the Flathead National Forest released a
Supplement to the EAR which announced Forest Service plans to go
ahead with one of the proposed alternatives. To reduce impacts on
grizzly habitat, the chosen alternative was substantially altered
fron the alternatives analyzed in the EAR (e.g. the Ketchikan Sale
was reduced to 2,300 acres with 11.3 miles of new road), but no
analysis was made of the economic consequences of these modifications.
The Supplement also concluded that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) was not necessary for the proposal. The conclusion was based
on a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) determination that the
proposed sales (with an extensive list of mitigation requirements)
were "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the grizzly
bear, gray wolf, and bald eagle" (USDA 1980b).
The Defenders of Wildlife and the Flathead chapter of the
Montana Wilderness Association appealed the timber sales, largely
on the grounds that the decision to forgo an EIS was wrong. The
appellants argued in part that the grizzly bear and gray wolf habitat
8
issue had not been properly addressed, especially in terms of cum-
mulative development activities occurring in the vicinity of the
proposed sales. They also questioned the need for the proposed sales
at a time when the national lumber economy is depressed, the local
annual timber cut appears to exceed the local mill capacity (USDA,
1980a), and the Forest Services's own economic analysis concluded
that the proposals would lose well over $880,000.
After denial of the appeal at the Flathead Supervisor's Office
and the Northern Regional Office, the appellants were jained by the
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund and the appeal was taken to the Chief
of the Forest Service in the Washington D.C. Office. The Chief denied
the appeal in the fall of 1981 and all four sales were immdiately
offered at auction. The three small sales sold, but the Ketchikan
Sale failed to receive any bids. The Flathead National Forest tem
porarily withdrew the sale, planning to reoffer it in the spring of
1982. The appellants sought to have the sale withdrawn until the
issue could be considered in the upcoming Integrated Forest Plan
(the draft is due to be published in February, 1983). They also
kept open the option of taking the appeal to court if the sale were
reoffered and sold.
Over the winter, the Flathead National Forest made changes in
the sale package, hoping to make the sale more attractive to bidders.
The appellants maintained efforts to block the sale and a summary
of this study was made available to the staff of Senator Max Baucus
for use in discussion of the sale with the Forest Supervisor. On
April 6, 1982, the Supervisor announced that the sale proposal would
be dropped until the forest plan could be completed.
9
CRITICAL HABITAT AND CUMMULATIVE IMPACTS
In letters printed in the EAR and Supplement, Dr. Charles
Jonkel, Director of the University of Montana Border Grizzly project,
Dr. Robert Ream, Director of the University of Montana Wolf Ecology
Project, and Thomas Hay, Regional Supervisor of the Montana State
Department of Fish and Game, all stated that the Ketchikan area is
very important wildlife habitat, especially for grizzly bear, gray
wolf and Dolly Varden trout. Jonkel and Ream were particularly con
cerned about cummulative developmental impacts in the vicinity, and
the lack of Forest Service attention to those cummiulative impacts.
These letters indicate that the Ketchikan Sale is a major portion of
one of the last undeveloped areas in the vicinity which is suitable
for grizzly bear and wolf habitat. The Missoulian reported the follow
ing reactions to the FWS decision that the North End Salvage sales
would not jeopardize the grizzly bear or gray wolf:
Jonkel, one of the leading bear experts in the world today, said he was amazed by the federal agency's decision that the Ketchikan salvage logging will not jeopardize the grizzly bear.-
"I don't know how in God's name they could have come to the conclusion they did," he said, adding that the Ketchikan area is "extremely good grizzly habitat — some of the best habitat west of the Continental Divide."
Ream voiced a similar reaction to the agency's decision. "I was really surprised when they came out with it," he said.
The logging plans might have been acceptable had not surrounding areas already faced such extensive development, (Jonkel) said. But now, Ketchikan "for some of the bears might be the last option." (Schwennesen, 1980a).
10
The cumraulative impacts which worry Jonkel, Ream and others,
include extensive logging in Canada, the Kootanai National Forest,
and adjacent private and Flathead National Forest lands, coal mining
in Canada, oil and gas drilling Canada, seismic exploration all around
and possibly within the area, potential electricity transmission
corridors, pipelines, increased housing development in the North Fork
valley, road construction and improvement to support the above and
other developments, and increasing hunting, trapping, and recreation
pressures. Logging in the vicinity is especially extensive, due to
the mountain pine beetle outbreak. Just over the Canadian border,
approximately $1 billion worth of coal lies near the surface, seismic
exploration has been extensive, and two oil and gas wells are being
drilled (Jonkel, 1979). Seismic exploration is proposed for much of
the North Fork drainage; Amoco has filed a prospecting plan for a
seismic line (a 30 pound explosive charge detonated every 220 feet for
20 miles) that runs right through the Ketchikan area (Schwennesen,
1981c). A BPA transmission corridor and pipelines from Canada are
possible in the vicinity (Schwennesen, 1980b). Increased recreation,
hunting, and trapping use and a new policy in Glacier National Park
requiring the destruction of bears involved in two encounters with
humans, put additional pressures on grizzly bears in the vicinity.
The Ketchikan Sale is not the only proposed development in the
North Fork Valley which is being actively opposed by conservationists.
A Canandian firm is seeking permits for two open pit coal mines —
each one mile wide and 1,000 feet deep — Just five miles north of the
sale area. The proposed Cabin Creek mines spurred the creation of
the. Flathead River Basin Environmental Impact Study, which is nearing
11
completion of several year long investigation designed to provide
comprehensive baseline environmental data for the Flathead Basin.
The Cabin Creek mines have also united many Canadian and U.S. citizen
groups concerned about threats to wildlife and the pristine qualities
of the North Fork Valley {Lakes, 1982).
For similar reasons, a Federal Highway Administration proposal
to pave a ten mile stretch of the North Fork road at the south end
of the valley is drawing considerable public opposition. Even the
FWS has ruled that this project (as originally proposed) would
jeopardize the continued existence of the grizzly bear and gray wolf.
The U.S. Park Service and the Montana Department of Fish and Game also
oppose the paving project, while the U.S. Forest Service and the
Montana Department of State Lands support it (USDOT, 1982).
Meanwhile, north of the border, the British Columbia Forest
Service has undertaken a very extensive response to the pine beetle
outbreak. With 7,000 acres already "salvaged" and 47,000 acreas left
dead, BCFS plans to spend $4.5 million over the next 4-5 years to
simply flatten 23,000 acres of non-commercial timber stands. The
BCFS recently announced plans to cut an additional 1 ,235 acres of
beetle infested lodgepole just over one mile from Glacier National
Park (Schwennsen, 1981a; 1981b; 1981d).
Taken together, these developmental pressures pose serious
threats to the remaining wildlife and wildness in the North Fork
Valley. The Forest Service is required by law to manage National
Forest lands for multiple-use resources, and to maintain and enhance
habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife. Placed in this con
text, a decision on the Ketchikan Sale should carefully weigh the
12
damage done to wildlife habitat against the need for, and benefit
of, intensive timber management on this particular tract.
The Forest Service offered three basic reasons for supporting
the Ketchikan Sale (to combat the pine beetle epidemic, reduce fire
hazards, and utilize timber that would otherwise go to waste), while
implying that impacts on wildlife would be negligible. For example:
Dick Call, ranger of the Glacier View District which oversees the sale, says leaving all that dead timber could trigger a large forest fire. And that would be bad for both bear and man.
"I do not feel too well about allowing 19 million board feet of timber go to waste," he says.
• • •
"We've been logging for 40 years (in the North Fork)," he says. "My personal observation is that the bears are increasing." (O'Harra, 1982a).
As discussed above, wildlife experts are quite concerned by
the potential impacts which this sale would have on wildlife. A
permanent road system and increased human activity in the Ketchikan
area are seen as greater threats to the grizzly bear than is the risk
of fire (Jonkel, 1979). The following sections will demonstrate that
there is-no foundation for assumptions that the Ketchikan Sale would
combat the mountain pine beetle epidemic or that it would reduce the
"waste" of timber resources.
13
MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE AND LODGEPOLE PINE; ECOLOGY AND ECONOMICS
The prospectus for the Ketchikan Sale states: "This sale is
being sold to reduce the spread of the mountain pine beetle," (USDA
1981d). This statement flies in the face of studies published by
Forest Service entomologists and other experts on the mountain pine
beetle. In order to evaluate possible land management decisions made
in reaction to a mountain pine beetle epidemic, it is necessary to
review the history of control attempts, the ecological role of the
beetle, and the literature concerning the economics of insect control.
Mountain Pine Beetle Control History
Although the first recorded outbreak of mountain pine beetle
(Dendroctonus Ponderosas Hopkins) in Rocky Mountain lodgepole Pinus
contorta Douglas var. latifolia Engleman) forests occurred in Flathead
County in 1909 (USDA, 1979; Klein, 1978), it is believed that the
mountain pine beetle has coexisted and probably coevolved with lodge-
pole pine from the beginning of the tree's existence (Cole and Amman,
1980; Peterman 1978). Forest Service attempts to control the mountain
pine beetle in lodgepole forests of the Rocky Mountains were initiated
in 1912 in the Flathead and Beaverhead National Forests. Extensive
and largely unsuccessful control attempts have been made throughout
the western U.S. from that time to the present, and actual control
of an epidemic is now generally considered not to be economically
u
efficent (Furniss and Carolin, 1980; Klein, 1978). Control techniques
have included underburning, felling and peeling, felling and burning
(in one case over 1,800 acres of lodgepole were cleared, wind-rowed
and burned), burning individual trees with flame throwers, spraying
with various chemicals, and even wrapping individual trees with
explosive cord and detonating (Klein,.1978). Currently, management
techniques can protect individual trees (at high cost) and can some
times delay the spread of an outbreak, but the consensus of Forest
Service experts seems to be that management of the mountain pine
beetle should be limited to; individual tree or stand protection
where economically justified, prevention of future outbreaks through
manipulation of tree age and species diversity where justified by
timber values, or simply allowing nature to run its course in many
cases (Cole and Amman, 1980; Klein, 1978; Cole, 1978; Amman et at,
1977). This history of extensive and unsuccessful control attempts
is blamed on an inadequate understanding of mountain pine beetle
ecology (Klein, 1978; Peterman, 1978).
Lodgepole Pine/Mountain Pine Beetle Ecology
Lodgepole pine is often a dominant species in forest eco
systems where wildfire and bark beetles play important roies. The
following synopsis of lodgepole/beetle ecology is taken largely from
Peterman (1978) and two Forest Service publications on the mountain
pine beetle in lodgepole pine (Cole and Amman, 1980; Amman et al,
1977).
Lodgepole pine occurs in western North America from Alaska
south to Baja California and east to Wyoming and Colorado, ranging
from sea level to 11,500 feet in Colorado. Lodgepole is considered
a serai, shade intolerant, prolific seed producing tree, which means
that it is quick to colonize distrurbed forest sites, but may be
subject to replacement by species which are more shade tolerant.
However, lodgepole often persists as the dominant species on forest
sites where other trees are considered the climax species. This
persistence can be attributed to several aspects of lodgepole ecology,
including fire and bark beetles (Brown, 1975; Pfister and Daubenmire,
1975).
Lodgepole pine can begin producing cones at 5 to 10 years of
age (Latham, 1965; Crossley, 1956) with each cone containing 25 to
40 seeds (Armit, 1966; Bates, 1930; Clements, 1910). These cones
are often serotinous, meaning they will not open to release seeds
unless subjected to high temperatures (such as in fires), and seeds
may remain viable for 75 years (Mason, 1915). An old lodgepole
stand can have in storage hundreds of thousands of seeds per acre,
ready to be released by an event such as fire (Lotan, 1975). This
reproductive system often leads to development of dense, stagnated
stands which are susceptible to mountain pine beetle attack and high
fuel build-up, setting the stage for an intense fire followed by
establishment of a new lodgepole pine stand. Repetition of this
cycle can be seen as a mechanism which allows the serai lodgepole
pine to persist as a dominant species while at the same time pro
viding habitat for the mountain pine beetle. What on the face may
appear to be a parasitic attack on one species by another, may actually
be a classic case of coevolutionary mutualism.
Further evidence of this mutualism can be found in the life
16
cycle and habits of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine.
Usually in late summer, new adult beetles emerge and attack living
trees, where they construct galleries and lay eggs in the inner bark.
Larvae move horizontally while feeding on the inner bark and kill the
trees by effectively girdling them, cutting off the trees' nutrient
transport system (the phloem). Several species of blue-stain fungi
(e.g., Ceratocytis montia Rumb., and Europhium clavigerum Robinson
and Davidson), which are carried from tree to tree by the adult
beetles, seem to regulate moisture conditions within affected trees
in a manner which is beneficial to the developing larvae. Thus,
additional species may be involved in the coevolutionary, mutualistic
cycle. In fact, some authorities state that it is the blue-stain
fungi, not the beetle, which kills the trees by invading and des
troying living tissues.^ It appears that the beetle/fungi association
behaves as a mutualistic system where the beetle transports the
fungi from host to host and the fungi weakens and conditions the host
to the benefit of the beetle (Safranyik et al, 1975).
Beetle population aynamics are affected by several factors
(including tree diameter, phloem thickness, tree age, stand density,
and climate) such that epidemics are most common in lodgepole stands
over 8U years of age and rarely occur in stands under 60 years of
age, nor at high elevation. This gives the stand plenty of time to
accumulate a considerable seed reservoir and fuel loading, thus en-
1 It may occur to some that control strategies aimed at the beetle may be misplaced if the fungi is the killing agent. I have not seen a discussion of this in the literature.
17
hancing the probability of fire and subsequent reseeding of lodgepole
pine following any beetle outbreak.
Breaking this cycle by preventing large wildfires (which were
a periodic part of lodgepole ecosystems until recent human suppression
practices) can be expected to allow forest succession to proceed to
climax (replacement of lodgepole by other species) where lodgepole
is serai. Fire suppression and prevention may be increasing the total
habitat suitable for (and size of) bark beetle outbreaks by allowing
more lodgepole stands to escape burning and live past age 60-80. If
a beetle epidemic kills a dominant lodgepole stand, and fire does
not occur to give lodgepole its reproductive advantage after a fire
(and if a seed source for more shade tolerant species is available),
the stand would eventually convert to a climax species such as fir
or spruce. This type of conversion would create species and age
mosaics which would significantly reduce the effects of future bark
beetle epidemics, given the beetle's habits which limit outbreaks to
lodgepole pine at least 60 years of age. Thus, while there may be
large short-term losses of lodgepole pine volume during an outbreak,
leaving the stand alone after an outbreak could lead to a situation
where long-range timber productivity would not be seriously impaired
(Wellner, 1978).
Understanding the ecology of lodgepole pine and mountain pine
beetle evokes a comparison between beetle management and fire manage
ment. In the late 1960's, the Forest Service began to realize that
its inflexible policy of aggressively suppressing all fires was often
counterproductive. Fire is now being seen as a mangement tool and
is often either allowed to burn naturally or even set deliberately
18
1 to attain management goals. Similarly, it has been suggested that
some mountain pine beetle outbreaks be allowed to run their course
2 naturally, as a management tool. Under certain conditions, the
mountain pine beetle is expected to convert current stagnant stands
to more economically desirable future stands (Peterman, 1978). For
resources other than timber, a beetle outbreak generally has negli
gible to positive impacts (Wellner, 1978). A recent Forest Service
publication on the mountain pine beetle (Cole and Amman, 1980) concurs
with other authorities that: 1) salvage or sanitation cuttings
cannot prevent or deter beetle outbreaks; 2) salvage operations
should be justified either directly by timber economics or indirectly
by impacts on other resources which warrant subsidization; and 3) a
"do-nothing" policy is often preferred (Cole, 1978; Peterman, 1978;
Wellner, 1978; Amman et al, 1977).
Forest Pest Economics
There is a surprising lack of literature on the subject of
Forest pest economics. As one authority puts it,
It is striking that so little good economic analysis has been done on forest pest management, considering the controversies over spray projects, the sizable annual outlays, and the dramatic impact of pests on forest growth. Recent compendia on forest economics and policy, e.g. Clawson, Research in Forest Economics and Policy, have almost nothing
Vor instance, see Troy Fire Management Plan, 1979. Kootanai National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Troy, Montana.
2 The Forest Service has engaged in extensive, expensive and controversial attempts to control another forest insect, the Douglas fir tussock moth. Recent studies suggest that the moth may actually be beneficial to forest productivity while control and salvage operations may cause more damage to the timber resource than the insect (Corkran, 1980; USDA, 1978).
19
to say on the economics of forest protection (Irland, 1980).
General pest management systems theory has faired somewhat
better. A 1976 review of that subject has 159 citations (Ruesink,
1976). In this general field, the economic optimization of pest
control activities has received considerable study. The concept of
economic threshold has been discussed since at least 1959 (Stern,
et al) and is now defined as;
That population where the marginal benefit from damage prevented by the control program is equal to the marginal cost of realizing that population through a control program (Hall and Norgaard, 1973).
If a pest control program is to be economically efficient, the
economic threshold (as defined above) for the particular control
program should be identified accurately, and pest damages below that
threshold should be tolerated (Norgaard, 1976; Stern, 1973). Despite
frequent calls for economic efficiency, forest pest control practice
has not kept up with theory:
economic thresholds, where they are set at all, are set arbitrarily and are dictated largely by emotional responses . . . fear of what might occur rather than any Justified economic base. The many absurd "control projects" committed in the name of protection are possible only through government subsidy (Stark, 1971).
That economic efficiency rather than vague notions of "good
forestry" should be the major decision criterion in forest management
investment is not a new position to be taken by professional foresters
(Newport, 1962; Stoltenberg, 1959). Arguments that economic efficiency
should be applied to forest insect control are not new either (Marty and
Allison, I960; Johnson, 1963). And yet, very expensive forest insect
control projects are pursued to this day and are often arbitrarily
justified by "good forestry," or emotional reactions to "waste" or
20
potential fire hazard. Where a benefit/cost analysis is employed,
it is often very poorly designed (Irland, 1977). For example, a
General Accounting Office investigation of a proposal to salvage
lodgepole pine involved in a mountain pine beetle outbreak in eastern
Oregon concluded that the Forest Service analysis of the project was
flawed to the point of uselessness because it omitted or understated
costs, used improper procedures, used unreliable or outdated data,
and failed to develop and analyze alternatives properly (U.S. Comp
troller General, 1976).
The following analysis will identify and attempt to correct
similar problems in the economic analysis prepared by the Flathead
National Forest for the proposed Ketchikan Sale.
21
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
EAR Analysis
The economic analysis of the Ketchikan Sale which was prepared
by the Flathead National Forest for use in the North End Salvage EAR
was flawed in many ways with repect to the sale proposal which was
actually offered for bid. For instance, the original proposal
evaluated in the EAR involved much more timber volume and road con
struction than the sale ultimately offered, but no revision was ever
made in the economic analysis to examine these changes. The EAR
analysis failed to include many timber management costs (i.e. sale
preparation, sale administration, site preparation, fuel treatment,
planting or thinning) that would result from the sale. While pur
porting to be simply a salvage operation, the proposal called for
a permanent road system and the economic analysis claimed as a benefit
the harvest of a very large volume of larch twenty years after the
initial entry. All other benefits and costs of future timber manage
ment in the area were ignored. The analysis also used an extremely
low estimate of the proportion of dead volume in the sale.
Perhaps the biggest problem with the Flathead National Forest's
economic analysis lies in its timber resource valuation methodology.
The value of the timber was set by averaging the sum of.estimated
logging costs, the estimated road costs and statistical high
bid^ received for twelve timber sales on the Glacier View Ranger
District from August, 1977 to October, 1978. The average value was
found to be $207.32/m.b.f. This figure was calculated using an
average of $21.81/m.b.f. for road costs, but an examination of the
timber sale reports for the twelve sales indicates that the estimated
road cost averaged only $5.96/m.b.f. The actual sum of logging costs,
road costs and statistical high bid for these sales ranged from
$120.14/m.b.f. to $309.05/m.b.f. Any value based on such a wide
range of data would be statistically quite weak.
Although site-specific logging and road cost estimates were
subtracted from this average resource value to calculate the benefits
of the initial entry, the value of the larch harvest planned for
twenty years later was calculated using a Forest-wide (not District-
wide) average statistical high bid for larch with no attempt to ad
just for any site-specific costs other than road construction.
These methods for valuing the two harvests are quite inconsistent.
The results of the Forest's economic analysis indicated that
the Ketchikan Sale would have a benefit/cost ratio of 0.76 and would
be a net present loss of $882,992. However, the Flathead decided to
offer the sale anyway, believing that the sale would be "bid up" by
competing buyers to a level well above the value at which it was ap
praised. Some timber sales on the Flathead National Forest had been
"bid up" by as much as six times the appraised value during the period
1 Statistical high bid is the winning bid (high bid) less pur
chaser credit. Purchaser credit is the value of timber that the purchaser is allowed to remove without payment, as compensation for road construction expenses. Thus, statistical high bid represents actual financial payment received by the Forest Service.
immediately preceeding the offering of the Ketchikan Sale (Armstrong,
1981). This "bidding up" indicates that the pricing method employed
by the Forest Service is no longer functional as a means of predicting
stumpage prices.
The Forest Service uses a residual pricing system to determine
the stumpage value at which to sell its timber. In this system, the
selling value for finished lumber is determined and all manufacturing,
transportation, and logging costs, along with an allowance for profit,
are subtracted from the lumber selling value. The resulting residual
price is considered the fair market stumpage value at which bidding
"I may begin (Davis, 1966). If, as in the Ketchikan case, this process
results in a negative indicated stumpage value (a deficit sale), then
the advertised rate is set at a minimum base rate. This residual
pricing system allows for timber to be sold at stumpage rates well
below what would be required to recover all timber management costs
associated with producing that timber (Barlow et al, 1980).
The Flathead's inability to estimate the selling value of its
timber accurately placed it in the contradictory position of demon
strating that the sale has a negative economic value while at the same
time preparing and offering the sale. Conservationists opposing the
sale were perplexed as to why the Forest did not seize the opportunity
to forgo a negative timber management investment while at the same
time protecting wildlife habitat and other multiple-use resources.
Coupled with the denial of its own analysis, the Flathead's omission
1 An excellent paper explaining the Forest Service's residual
pricing method is available from John A. Combes, Timber Management, Northern Region Office, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Montana.
24
of timber management costs, its inconsistent methodology for valuing
benefits, and its inability to predict an accurate selling value
created very fertile ground for misunderstanding and misinterpretation
of the sale's economics by those on both sides of the controversy.
New Approach
This paper was initiated in an attempt to rectify these problems
and clarify the economics of the Ketchikan Sale. The economic analysis
given here is not presented as a hind-sight correction of the Flat
head's analysis. In fairness to the Forest, much of the methodology
and data used here were developed after the Flathead's analysis was
undertaken. This analysis is offered as a new approach, using the
most recent and site-specific methodology and data available. For
instance, a new transaction evidence model for stumpage valuation
on the Flathead was used to overcome the inability to predict the
selling value of the sale's timber accurately. Except for the pre
diction of road costs, all methodology and values used here are the
same as those employed in the preparation of the Flathead forest plan.
It is hoped that this study will help clarify the economics
of the Ketchikan sale for both sides in the debate. If this raethc-
dology and data had been available at the outset of preparation of
the Ketchikan Sale, and if the Flathead had used it to predict the
timber selling value and management costs associated with the sale,
a good deal of time and money might have been saved, and much mis
understanding avoided by both sides in the controversy.
1 The Draft Flathead National Forest Plan is due to be published
February, 1983.
25
For instance, use of the stunipage valuation equation (explained
below) would have predicted that the original sale would not receive
any bids. Some Forest Service officials still maintain that the
Ketchikan Sale was the victim of a lumber market which dropped during
the lengthy appeals process. Although real lumber price, lumber
1 tally for lodgepole pine has continued to drop since it peaked in
1 mid 1978, the current real lumber price, log scale for lodgepole pine
is actually slightly above the average for large timber sales sold on
the Flathead during 1978 (calculated from Flathead Large Sale Data
computer printout dated 11/5/81, USDA, 1981e). This surprising
situation can be attributed to an increase in the real value of by
products (chips) and to improved milling efficiency. These factors
have offset reductions in lumber price, lumber tally, so that even
though the lumber market price has declined, the vlaue of a thousand
board feet of logs has remained fairly constant.
The Flathead stumpage valuation model predicts that the ori
ginally offered sale would not have sold even under the peak con
ditions of 1978. However, the model predicts that the modifications
made in the sale contract over the winter were sufficient to have
allowed the revised sale to sell, provided that there are buyers in
the vicinity willing to contract to cut timber at the present
1 Lumber price, lumber tally is the price of a unit of milled
lumber. Lumber price, log scale is the price of wood products which can be milled from a unit of raw logs. Lumber price, log scale is derived by adding the value of by-products such as chips obtained in the milling of a unit of logs to the lumber price, lumber tally and then multiplying the sum by an overrun factor. The overrun (or recovery) factor is a measure of milling efficiency. Current log scaling methods seriously underestimate the volume of lumber that today's sawmills can produce from a unit of logs.
26
1 time. But as shown below, even if the sale had sold for the pre
dicted bid, it would not have covered the timber management costs
associated with it.
Methods and Assumptions
The approach used here is very similar to a bare land or site
expectation analysis based on the Faustmann formula (also known as
soil expectation, land rent or land expectation vlaue. See Davis,
1966). The essential difference between this analysis and the Faust
mann formula is that here costs and benefits of harvesting the exist
ing stand are added to the costs and benefits of managing timber over
2 only the next rotation. The Faustmann formula would ignore the
existing stand and would consider an infinite series of rotations
beginning with stand establishment. This analysis was limited to
one rotation because all calculations were done manually, and any
costs or benefits accruing after the first rotation would have minimal
present values (for instance, a $5 million harvest 200 years from now
would have a gross present value of $1,960 using a 4% discount rate,
and only a $5 present value using 7 1/8%).
The inclusion of existing stand values allows a marginal economic
analysis of the sale as a timber management investment. By including
future benefits and costs, the high initial road costs (which would
1 The model is based on local transaction evidence from the
period July, 1974 - January, 1980, and thus may overvalue stumpage during periods fo extreme lumber industry stagnation and low timber demand.
2 A rotation is the period between timber harvest on a particular site.
27
not be covered by the net timber value of the initial sale) can be
more equitably attributed to future as well as initial uses J Fixed
annual benefits and costs (e.g. grazing receipts or general adminis
tration costs) are not included here. Such annual receipts or expenses
at the district or forest level should not be significantly affected
by a decision to proceed with or forgo the Ketchikan Sale.
The planning horizon for the analysis was increased from the
20 years used in the EAR to 100 years (one full rotation), and the
net present value through the first rotation was calculated based on
current stand conditions, scheduled management activity, and pro
jected yield estimated in detailed working papers prepared for each
cutting unit by the district silviculturalist (Wilson, 1981). This
entailed quantifying all management costs (i.e. road construction
and reconstruction, road engineering and administration, sale pre
paration and administration, site preparation and fuel treatment,
planting, stocking surveys, and thinning) and expected benefits
2 (stumpage values for all commercial harvests) in constant dollars
discounted to the present. (While 100 years may stretch the limits
of prognostication at this point is time, using the silviculturalist's
detailed projections of yield and management activity through one
1 This approach (mixing benefits and costs of initial harvests with those of future harvests) can become problematic where an old growth stand may have high value on a site with a negative bare land value. It would be possible in such a case to have a positive net present value (in terms of timber management economics) even though management costs would exceed benefits for all future harvests. This situation is not encountered here.
2 All values are adjusted for inflation using the quarterly GNP Implicit Price Deflator Indices reported in the Survey of Current Business (USDOC, 1979-82).
rotation allows a virtual state of the art estimate of timber manage
ment costs and benefits without resorting to a computer. Since vir
tually all of the models and value data used here are taken from the
Flathead FORPLAN computer model, it should be relatively easy for the
Forest Service to use its computers to apply this approach to an in
finite series of rotations when preparing future economic analyses
of timber sales).
Three discount rates were applied; 4%, 7 1/8%, and 10%.
The debate over the proper discount rate for public forestry has
not yet been settled, but these three rates seem to cover the range
of common argument (O'Toole, 1981; Mikesell, 1977; Samuelson, 1976).
The 4% rate was recently proposed by the Forest Service as the rate
it will use in its planning process, along with a 7 1/8% rate as a
sensitivity test (USDA, 1981b). Use of the lower discount rate for
public forestry is often supported by foresters and conservationists
because higher rates reduce the age at which timber matures finan
cially. Foresters also worry that a higher discount rate would pre
clude investment in timber management on much slow-growing public
timberland currently committed to timber production. Economists
supporting the lower rate often argue that since public entities
incur lower risk than private enterprise, the public rate of discount
should be similar to the marginal real interest rate born by low risk
financial instruments (i.e. AAA rated bonds). Other economists argue
that the public discount rate should approximate the marginal rate
for private industry engaged in similar activity. A recent canvass
of timber companies in the Pacific Northwest concluded that the
marginal rate for the industry was approximately 7% - 8% (O'Toole,
29
1981). This is very close to the 7 3/8% rate recommended by the
Water Resources Board for public works. On the upper end, the Office
of Management and Budget has insisted for several years that 10% is
the proper social rate of discount.
Benefits were estimated through the use of a stumpage valuation
model developed for the Flathead in the spring of 1981 for use in
the forest plan (USDA, 1981a). The model is a multiple regression
equation based- oh 39 large timber sales sold on the Flathead National
Forest during the period July, 1974 through January, 1980. The equa
tion is adjusted for inflation and uses sale-specific factors and
market variables to predict the selling value of timber on the Flat
head. Predicted real increases in lumber price, production costs
and overrun factor for the Flathead were included in the estimation
of timber selling value for future harvests (see Appendix A). (Ap
plication of this equation to the Ketchikan Sale is unique in that
the data base for the Flathead stumpage valuation model included no
sales with such a large proportion of dead timber. The fact that
this sale contains 73% dead timber, much of it dead since 1979, may
create a situation in which the equation would tend to overvalue
the sale stumpage).
Another recently developed model was used to predict initial
entry road construction costs and reconstruction costs for future
management entries. Jackson and Loveless (1981) have generated a
multiple regression equation based on 52 road construction and re
construction contracts let by the Forest Service Northern Region
during fiscal years 1979 and 1980. This equation is adjusted for
inflation and is as accurate as .an Engineer's Cost Estimate while
30
being relatively simple to apply. The construction costs predicted
by this equation were adjusted downward to allow for Bacon-Davis
wage rates and a recent trend indicating reduced road construction
bids in the Northern Region (See Appendix B).
Other costs were taken from documentation of the FORPLAN analysis
prepared for the Flathead Forest Plan (USDA, 1981a). These costs are
based on 1980 experienced costs and are adjusted for inflation. These
costs have also been presented in a manner which allows adjustment
for many site-specific factors such as unit size, percent slope,
habitat type, harvest and yarding methods, etc. (see Appendices C - E).
Two other assumptions made here are that the road system pro
posed for the Ketchikan Sale will not be extended to access additional
stands and that timber mangement will be limited to the units included
in the current proposal. These limits were imposed as wildlife
habitat mitigation, and it is assumed that this mitigation will con
tinue through the planning period. Detailed documentation of assump
tions, methods and mathematical operations appear in the appendices.
Results
The above methods and assumptions were applied to two potential
outcomes of the Ketchikan Sale; Case 1 and Case 2. These examples
were employed in order to reflect the predictive nature of the cost
and benefit valuation methodology used. An examination of the ap
pendices shows that great effort was made to make the valuation metho
dology as detailed and specific as possible with respect to the con
ditions which would be experienced for the Ketchikan Sale area.
These values are based on actually experienced values for recent
31
sales in the same vicinity. However, at some point such valuation
must be based on some sort of average. For instance, the regression
equation used to predict stumpage value (Appendix A) is much more
responsive to sale-specific factors (i.e. current lumber price,
contract length, logging method, haul distance, volume per acre, and
tree diameter) than is the method used in the Flathead National
Forest's EAR (an average of predicted logging and road costs plus
statistical high bid for several timber sales on the same ranger
district, less predicted logging and road costs for the Ketchikan
Sale). While no statistical analysis is available for the reliability
of the latter method, the regression equation has an of .806 and
confidence intervals of approximately ± 30% at the 95% confidence
level.^
Case 1 assumes that the sale will sell for the advertised rates
and that the roads will be constructed using the contributed funds and
purchaser credit offered in the current sale package. This represents
the minimum bid for which the sale could be sold, and avoids reliance
on estimates derived from the regression equations for initial sale
1 Although this 30% confidence interval is rather wide, the
equation is superior to the residual price appraisal method. The regression equation is more responsive to sale-specific conditions; has the ability to incorporate expected changes in lumoer milling efficiency, logging costs, and lumber values; and is easier to apply to future sales. In addition, the equation would appear to be much more accurate than a method which has been underestimating bids on the Flathead National Forest by six to eight times. This study used mean values — not statistical ranges — for the various value data because mean values represent the best available estimates, avoid excess calculations and confusion, and because statistical analyses are not available for most of the data.
stumpage value and road costs. Case 2 assumes that the sale will
sell for the bid predicted by the transaction evidence models for
stumpage value and road costs. This assumption predicts the selling
bid under conditions experienced on the Flathead during the period
1974 to 1980 and may tend to overestimate the selling bid for the
Ketchikan Sale, given the unusually large proportion of deal volume
in the sale and the currently stagnated timber market. Thus, these
two cases present a range into which the actual bid could have fallen
(probably nearer to Case 2).
Both cases are based on the most recent modifications pro
posed for the sale (Armstrong, 1982b). The computation of discounted
present values is shown in Appendix F. The results given below are
in fourth quarter 1981 dollars.
Case 1
4%
Discounted Total Benefits
Discounted Total Costs
Present Net Value
Benefit/Cost Ratio
490,868
1 ,075,388
-584,520
0.4565
7 1 /8%
181,384
885,288
-703,905
0.2049
10%
115,252
808,100
-692,848
0.1426
Case 2
4%
Discounted Total Benefits
Discounted Total Costs
Present Net Value
Benefit/Cost Ratio
1 , 122 ,218
1,279,006
-154,074
0.8774
7 1 /8%
773,438
1,085,476
-312,038
0.7125
10%
637,832
1,005,300
-330,822
0.6709
Discussion
This study indicates that timber management economics cannot
33
be used to justified the Ketchikan Sale. Except for road construction
costs, all costs and benefits were estimated using the same methods
and values that the Flathead National Forest is using in the develop
ment of its forest plan. These cost and benefit values were applied
to all timber management activities and harvest yields projected by
the district silviculturalist for the next 100 years. The results
show that the Ketchikan Sale would have a net present value of
"$154,000 to "$704,000, and a benefit/cost ratio ranging from 0.88 to
0.14. In terms of timber management economics, the proposed Ketchikan
Salvage Sale would be a greater loss than would a no-harvest policy
allowing the timber to de'cay and regenerate naturally.
Since the road system is to be closed except during timber
management activity, the only other benefits which could possible
be claimed for the Ketchikan Sale proposal are insect and fire damage
reduction. Both are primarily associated with the timber resource.
As shown earlier, the Forest Service's own experts agree that mountain
pine beetle control or salvage should be justified by timber management
economics.
While fire mangement costs were included here (they are direct
costs of timber management on Forest Service land), fire hazard re
duction benefits were omitted due to time and data constraints.
However, the methodology is available to estimate the benefits and
costs associated with events, such as fire, which involve uncertainty
and risk (Halvorsen and Ruby, 1981; Hirshleifer- and Riley, 1 9 7 9 ) .
The Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region has developed a methodology
specifically for evaluating benefits and costs associated with mountain
pine beetle control, including fire' management (Averill et at., 1 9 7 7 ) .
An analysis of fire management benefits attributable to the
Ketchikan Sale proposal would entail determining the value and
probability of suppression costs and resource losses, both with and
without the sale. This would include modeling of fuel types, rates
of spread, size at control, suppression costs and resource damage
under both the with and without assumptions. Probability of fire,
derived from local fire statistics, could then be used to estimate
monetary values under each condition, and risk analysis could be
applied to evaluate the either/or decision in terms of fire manage
ment.^ If fire management is to be claimed as a benefit for a timber
sale, such an analysis should be made.
While the omitted benefits, if any,-are related to fire manage
ment, the costs of the Ketchikan Sale proposal which have been omitted
here include wildlife habitat destruction (especially critical threat
ened and endangered species habitat), watershed and fisheries damage,
and aesthetic disruption near a national park and a national wild and
scenic river. A rational decision based on economics for the Ketchikan
Sale would weigh the timber management present net loss of $154,000 to
$704,000 plus unquantified wildlife habitat, watershed and aesthetic
damage against unquantified fire suppression benefits.
If economic efficiency were required in Forest Service timber
1 A computer model which may be capable of this sort of analysis
is being developed by the U.S. Forest Service's Pacific Southwest Station. Called the "Fire Economics Evaluation System," a prototype is planned to be tested in the Rocky Mountain-Intermountain Climate Zone by 1985. See Marcia Wood, "Is your fire management program 'economically efficient'?" Forestry Research West. Sept., 1982, pp. 5-9. USDA Forest Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
management, the minimum acceptable (or marginal) bid for the Ketchikan
Sale would be that which would give the sale a net present value of
zero. For example, to offset the net present loss shown above for
Case 2, the present value of the predicted bid for the initial sale
would have to increase by $312,038 (under the 7 1/8% discount rate).
This would require a stumpage price of $91.69 per m.b.f., which is
$29.72 (48%) more than the bid predicted by the Flathead stumpage
1 valuation model and $90.04 more than the advertised rate. In other
words, had the Ketchikan Sale been reoffered, the Forest Service would
have accepted a bid as low as $1.65 per m.b.f., even though timber
management costs would not be covered unless the bid was at least
$91.69 per m.b.f.
Even using the upper confidence interval at the 95% confidence
level for the stumpage valuation equation, the predicted bid would be
$61.08 per m.b.f., still $30.61 short of covering timber management
costs. Only under the 4% discount rate could the 30% confidence
interval for the equation possibly give the timber management economics
of the Ketchikan Sale a positive present net value. Correctly stated,
at the 95% confidence level, assuming a 4% discount rate, the expected
net present value for Case 2 would range from +$80,171 to -$388,319,
with an expected mean of "$154,074. The associated benefit/cost ratio
would range from 1.06 to 0.69, with a mean of 0.88. For reasons
discussed above, the slightly positive outcome at the upper limit of
Vrom Appendix A, the predicted bid was $45.66 (first quarter 1978) which converts to $61.97 fourth quarter 1981 using the factor 199.58 T 147.05.
this confidence interval is considered improbable.
37
CONCLUSIONS
Economic analysis cannot and should not be the sole criterion
in Forest Service land management decisions, but the use of economics
in decision-making can and should be improved. In the Ketchikan
case, a proper application of economic analysis to timber management
clearly shows that timber management economics do not support the sale.
Other criteria which must be considered include damage to critical
wildlife habitat, watershed, fisheries and aesthetic resources in a
relatively pristine area of national significance which is facing
intense developmental pressures on many fronts.
These negative impacts must be weighed against the unevaluated
fire management situation. If fire hazard is a problem which must
be addressed, a fire management economic analysis should be made,
not only of the proposed timber sale, but also of alternatives which
deal directly with the fire hazard problem, including a no-action
alternative. In cases such as the Ketchikan Sale where the main re
source threatened by fire (timber) has a negative present value, a
no-action policy for fire hazard reduction may be justified. An
analysis of risk and uncertainty should be conducted, especially in
a case such as this, where a proposed action would have certain
negative impacts on many resources while the action would only pos
sibly reduce impacts from uncertain future events.
38
At least on the Flathead National Forest, the forest planning
process has developed methodology and values which can be used for
vastly improved timber management benefit/cost analyses. Timber
management costs have been identified and sale specific stumpage
values can now be predicted. This information should be applied to
the economic analyses of future timber sales. The current residual
pricing method employed by the Forest Service should be replaced by
more appropriate methods. For instance, the long term timber manage
ment costs for the sale area could be estimated to set a marginal
price. The stumpage valuation model could then be used to predict
the price that the timber industry would be willing to pay. Proposed
sales with a predicted selling value falling below the marginal price
could be eleminated from further consideration (thereby preventing
the waste of time and money for both the Forest Service and groups
opposing controversial sales). Proposed sales with predicted selling
values exceeding the marginal price could then be examined to compare
timber management benefits with unquantifiable costs to other re
sources.
Timber management on national forest lands is primarily a
commodity production activity. Although the Forest Service is con
strained by multiple-use resource considerations where a private
timberland owner would be more or less free to manage soley for
maximum timber production profits, there is no reason why Forest
Service timber management should not be economically efficient.
This is not to say that all Forest Service management ac
tivities should be rigidly constrained by quantified economic analy
ses. Many national forest resources are non-commodity in nature
39
(e.g., wildlife, watershed) and are difficult, it not impossible,
to quantify. Where commodity production such as timber management
has quantifiable value and conflicts with noncommodity resources
such as endangered species habitat, subjective decisions must be made,
because such things as wildlife habitat and extinction cannot be
objectively quantified in economic terms. Commodity production can be
rendered to objective economic analysis, and when such an analysis
indicates that the commodity has a negative value, a rational decision
would forgo commodity production.
There may be cases where timber cutting could support noncom
modity resource, multiple-use goals (e.g. production of brush for big
game browse might be increased by cutting some trees to open up a
dense forest canopy, allowing more light to reach the forest floor).
Unfortunately, multiple-use rhetoric is often used after controversy
arises to justify timber sales originally planned to meet timber pro
duction goals. An example is the proposed Canyon Creek Sale on the
Bitterroot National Forest. Part of that sale calls for clearcuts
which are objected to by many area citizens. After the Forest's own
economist had determined that if the clearcuts were removed, the
sale would have positive, rather than the current negative timber
management economics, the Forest Supervisor and Regional Forester
both argued that the clearcuts were necessary to enhance nontimber
resources.
Although public pressure and the current economic situa:tion
finally convinced the Supervisor of the Flathead National Forest
to withdraw the Ketchikan Sale, had a willing buyer appeared last
fall,..the Forest Service would have let the sale at a significant
40
economic loss.
Sales such as Ketchikan and Canyon Creek are not isolated events.
A study released by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1980
(Barlow et al) shows that even under conservative assumptions, a great
deal of Forest Service timber is managed at a loss and that a signifi
cant number of national forests operate their timber management func
tion at a net loss. Part of the problem is the result of the residual
pricing method currently used to set Forest Service stumpage prices.
Instead of setting the price at a level which would return timber
management costs, the residual pricing method attempts to determine
what a purchaser would be able to pay, net of all estimated production
costs. This method is clearly inaccurate and incapable of insuring
economic efficiency in timber management. In addition to economic
inefficiency, Barlow, et al., argue that this residual pricing method
leads to reduced timber production on the nation's most productive
lands — the small, privately owned timberlands. Since the Forest
Service is the largest single producer of timber in the U.S., the
Forest Service practice of selling timber below production costs
maintains an artificially low market price for stumpage and creates
disincentives for private production.
Beyond the pricing problem there appears to be great potential
for future conflicts between noncommodity resources and economic
efficiency in timber management on one side, and deficit salvage
sales such as Ketchikan on the other. Great pressure is being put
on Forest Service line officers to meet timber production quotas.
These quotas are set by largely political decisions made at the
Washington D.C. level and are passed down the line.
41
Although the National Forest Management Act limits timber pro
duction on national forests to land which is biologically, physically,
technologically and economically capable of producing timber, the
definitions of these limits are the subjects of debate and manipula
tion. For instance, the regulations implementing the NFMA define the
economic limit as cost effectiveness in meeting assigned goals, while
some authorities argue that the NFMA calls for economic efficiency
In timber management (Krutilla and Haigh, 1978; Stoel, 1978). Re
gional Plans are maintaining the antiquated definition of commercial
forest land as any site capable of producing 20 cubic feet/acre/year,
even though many respondents to the plans argue that the appropriate
definition is closer to 50 or even 100 cubic feet/acre/year.
The Northern Region Plan states flatly that the region will
be unable to meet its assigned timber production goals unless capital
funds are used to access roadless areas at a greatly accelerated
pace — meaning that timber must be cut in areas where road costs
exceed timber values — and salvage sales are offered in larger
numbers (USDA 1981c, pp. 44-22 & 44-23). Salvage sales are excepted
from important restrictions placed on timber management activity by
the NFMA regarding size of opening, prohibition of timber harvest
on "marginal lands," prohibition of timber harvest before culmination
of mean annual increment, and prohibition of timber harvest above the
sustained yield-allowable cut level. These restrictions were created
to regulate timber cutting on national forest land, largely for the
protection of nontimber resources which are adversely impacted by
extensive cutting and elimination of old growth stands. Thus, use
of the salvage loophole in NFMA may lead to many future conflicts
42
between timber management and other forest resources.
Those concerned with these potential future conflicts should
identify and deal with the political and policy decisions which force
the issue. Salvage sales should be justified either by positive
timber management economics in excess of negative impacts to other
resources, or by compelling management needs of other resources, not
by emotional appeals to prevention of waste or "good forestry" which
cannot be supported by rational analysis.
43
Appendix A
STUMPAGE VALUE ESTIMATES
Stumpage. value is estimated here using methods developed by
Jackson and McQuillan (1979) and Merzenich (1979). In the spring
of 1981, Merzenich derived a multiple regression equation based on
data from 39 large timber sales sold on the Flathead National Forest
during the period July 1974 through January 1980. The equation uses
market variables and sale-specific site factors to estimate what the
logging industry would be willing to pay for the stumpage in a par
ticular sale, assuming that environmental protection, road maintenance
and temporary development costs are zero. The equation gives this
stumpage value in first quarter 1980 dollars, has an adjusted of
.806, and has a standard error of $19.90 (15% of the mean predicted
high bid). Thus, at the 95% confidence level, the confidence interval
is ± $39.80 (30%). Merzenich's equation is being used in the economic
portion of FORPLAN by the Flathead National Forest in the development
of its Integrated Forest Plan (USDA, 1981a).
Initial Entry Stumpage Value
By substituting the mean value for the independent variable
dealing with ineffective purchaser credit (which is unknown for the
Ketchikan Sale), the Flathead equation can be simplified to the
k k
form:
Y - "283.28 + 0.3814x^ + 0.563X2 - O.AgS^x^ - 0.660x^
+ 101.36x^ - 35.57Xg + 0.6037Xg - 0.4369Xg
where:
Y = high bid value/ra.b.f. (first quarter 1980 dollars)
x. = weighted average lumber price, log scale (first quarter 1980 dollars/m.b.f.
x^ = contract length in months
x^ = percent of sale volume jammer logged
x^ = percent of sale skyline logged
Xp = natural log of the weighted median d.b.h. t) Xg = a dummy variable for SBA sales
Xg = volume/acre harvested (m.b.f.)
Xg = total haul distance in miles
The stumpage value for the Ketchikan Sale is estimated using
the above equation and the following independent variable values.
Data sources, assumptions used, and derivation of each value are
also given below:
x^ = 247.82 The derivation of this value is shown below. The
species and percent net volumes are taken from the Sale
Prospectus. The lumber price, log scale, is taken from the
"West Side Zone Index Operation #6" in the most recent
update of lumber prices for Forest Service Region One 1
(Combes, 1982), except dead lodgepole and dead white pine.
The first lumber price, log scale, shown is in fourth
quarter 1981 dollars and is deflated to first quarter
1980 dollars using the GNP Implicit Price Deflator Indeces:
171.23 7 199.58 = .8580.
1 These prices for dead species are extrapolated from the live
prices using the lumber tally price and overrun factor for dead lodge-pole found at FSM SUPP. R-1 281 11 /81 2422.34—3 and using the 15% reduction in lumber tally price and 9.8% reduction in overrun for dead white pine found in the Appraisal Summary for the Ketchikan Sale.
45
Species % net VolJ x L.P.L.S. x Deflation = Weighted L.P.L.S. (1981 $) Factor dst Qtr. 1980 $)
L-DF 1 ,100/12,200 350.86 .8580 27.14 S-0 590/12,200 343.09 .8580 14.24 SAF 240/12,000 261.65 .8580 4.42 LPL 1 ,340/12,200 317.22 .8580 29.89 LPD 8,900/12,000 273.40 .8580 171 .12 WPL 10/12,200 500.18 .8580 0.35 WPD 20/12,200 400.89 .8580 0.56
247.72
^2 = 26.5 (from the Sale Prospectus) The unusual operating
season limits prescribed by the contract could add risks
(costs) not measured by this' equation.
x^ = 3.1 (from the Contract Volume Summary, 361,308711,665,804)
x^ = 0 (from the Contract Volume Summary)
x_ = 2.485 Average d.b.h. by species from the sawlog Appraisal 5
Table (Sale Cruise Computer printout dated 4/30/81 with
correction of dead lodgepole volume dated 7/10/81) was
converted to median d.b.h. by adding the difference between
average d.b.h. and median d.b.h. for each species computed
for sales over 1 m.m.b.f. on the Flathead from 7/74 to
5/81 (printout dated 11/5/81 on file in the Regional
Office). The resulting median d.b.h. was weighted by
% net volume of the total sale by species as corrected
in the Sawlog Appraisal Table. This weighted median d.b.h.
was found to be 12, the natural log of which is 2.485.
x, = 0 The sale was not offered as a Small Business Set-Aside. o Xq = 13 (from the Sale Prospectus) o x = 56 (from the Appraisal Summary)
Substituting these values for the independent variables in the
above equation gives the following estimated bid:
1 This does not include 160 m.b.f. of unsound sapwood which has
no listed lumber price. Inclusion of the unsound sapwood would tend to reduce the weighted average lumber price for this sale.
46
Y = -283.28 + 0.3814(24.72) + 0.563(26.5) - 0.4954(3.1) - 0.660(0) + 101.36(2.485) - 35.57(0) + 0.6037(13) - 0.4369(56) = 59.84
This is the predicted high bid value (first quarter 1980 dollars)
for the Ketchikan Sale assuming that environmental protection, road
maintenance and temporary development costs are zero. The current
Appraisal Summary estimates these costs to be $6.37, $4.07 and $1.20
1 per m.b.f. respectively. Subtracting these costs (deflated to first
quarter 1980 dollars), the predicted high bid becomes;
59.84 - (6.37 + 4.07 + 1.20)(.8580) = 49.85
In order to estimate the dollar benefits to accrue to the
Ketchikan Sale, the above stumpage value must be added to the slash
disposal deposits required in the sale contract. These deposits are
included as benefits because they will be used in part to defray the
2 site preparation and fuel treatment costs considered later. The
current sale package requires slash disposal deposits of $4.04 per
m.b.f. for live timber and $3.80 per m.b.f. for dead lodgepole and
dead white pine (second quarter 1981 dollars). Weighting these values
for the sale volume and deflating to first quarter 1980 dollars gives
the following deposit value;
4.04(3280 f 12,200) + 3.80(8920 T 12,200)(.8580) = 3.32
Adding this deposit value to the above bid value gives a total benefit
for the Ketchikan Sale of; 49.85 + 3.32 = 53.17 first quarter 1980
dollars per m.b.f. This value deflates to 45.66 first quarter 1978
^These cost values include required slash disposal and road maintenance deposits^
2 It is assumed here that road maintenance deposits will cover
road maintenance costs and, thus, cancel each other out.
47
dollars [53.17(147.05 7 171.23)].
Table A-1 shows total benefits, by year, expected for the
Ketchikan Sale. An assumption that 20% of the sale volume will be
harvested in the first year and 40% in each of the two following
years was made in the economic analysis prepared by the Forest Service
for the sale EAR. The same assumption is made here. Benefits are
attributed to the end of the fiscal year in which they accrue and thus
the dates listed below are one year later than actual harvest.
TABLE A-1
INITIAL ENTRY BENEFITS
(1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Volume Stumpage Value Total Benefit Year (m.b.f.) x ($/m.b.f.) = [$_)
1983 2,440 45.66 111,410 1984 4,880 45.66 222,821 1985 4,880 45.66 222,821
Re-entry Stumpage Values
Stumpage values for future harvests will be predicted following
the method used by Merzenich (1979). In order to allow for real in-
1 creases in lumber price, overrun factor and production costs, and to
maintain the inherent relationships of the stumpage valuation equation,
future harvest stumpage value must first be calculated using current
lumber prices, and then adjusted for projected increases in lumber
price and production cost. Once the current stumpage value is known,
current production costs can be derived using the formula:
PC = LP - SV; or SV - (LP - PC)
1 Overrun, or recoyery factor, is a measure of milling efficiency.
48
where:
PC = production cost/m.b.f., log scale
LP = lumber price/m.b.f., log scale
SV = stumpage value/m.b.f., log scale
This formula can also be used to convert current stumpage
value (SVQ) to projected future stumpage value for year n. If pro
jected multiplicative increases for lumber price and production
costs are known for the period 0-n, then projected future stumpage
value can be claculated using the following relationships;
PC^ = PCQ X b^ ̂ (b = production cost multiplicative factor)
LP^ = LPQ X a^ ̂ (a = lumber price multiplicative factor)
Such multiplicative factors, based on projected increases in
overrun, lumber price and production costs have been developed for the
Flathead FORPLAN analysis, using a study by Adams and Haynes (1979).
The projections model increases in all three factors from 1980 to
2040, in ten year increments. The Adams and Haynes study indicates
that each factor will reach its potential limit for increase by 2043.
The appropriate projection is used below in calculation of future
stumpage values.
The same equation used above to predict initial entry stumpage
value will be used to estimate current stumoage values for future
entries; however, the equation must be further simplified. Since
the contract length and SBA variable for future sales are unknown,
the forest mean for the Flathead equation is used for independent
variables x^ and x^. It is assumed that there will be no skyline
logging in future sales, so independent variable x^ drops out. It
is also assumed that the haul distance will remain 56 miles, so this
value is used for variable Xg, which becomes part of the constant.
^9
The simplified equation thus becomes:
Y = -288.60 + 0.38UX, - 0.'4954x_ + 101 .36x^ + 0.6037x„ 13 5 8
Therefore, the unknowns which remain to be found for each future
harvest re-entry are; current lumber price, percent volume jammer
logged, median d.b.h., and volume per acre. To determine the
appropriate lumber price, each harvest volume must be weighted by
percent of each species having a different lumber price. First, the
future harvest schedule must be determined.
Table A-2 shows the acreage and harvest activity by year for
each unit in the Ketchikan Sale area, as projected by the Silvicul-
turalist's Diagnonsis and Prescription (Wilson, 1981). The units
are grouped according to the road segment by which they are accessed.
Units to be jammer logged are denoted by the letter (J).
TABLE A-2 Scheduled Harvest Activity
50
Rd #1046-1 Unit
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
20 21
Acres 3 6
1 1
5 22
2 26 11 25 48
2002 CC CC CC
OR OR OR OR
OR
2012 2042
CT CT CT CT CT CT CT
2052 2062 CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT
2082
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
Rd #1046-2 11 (J) 12 12* 13 14 15 16 17(J) 18{J) 19 22 23 24(J)
12 17 13 15 12 47
116 6
10 93 37 13 7
CC CC OR
CC
CT CT
CT CT
CT
CT
CT CT
CT CT
CT CT
CT CT CT CT
CT CT
CC CC CC CT CT ST CC CC CC CC CT CC CT
9 10
68 77
OR Pd #1047
CT CT
CT CT
ST CC
34(J) 35 36 37 38
1
5 26 40 43
SW OR
OR
Rd #1048-1 "Tm
CT
CT CT
CT
CT CT
CT CT
CT ST CC ST CC
30 21 31 14 32(J) 5 33 18
Total Acres
SW SW SW 391
Rd #1048-2
OR OR OR 38 657
CT
96
CT CT CT 779
CC CT CT CT
855
CT NOTE; CC = clear cut; OR = overstory removal; SW = shelterwood; commercial thin; ST = seed tree.
*Unit 12 is divided into two seperate portions receiving different management regimens by the Silviculturalist's Diagnosis and Prescription.
51
Projected volume, species composition, and d.b.h. for each unit
are given by year in Table A-3. Each factor in Table A-3 was derived
using the following assumptions:
Volume; The Silviculturalit's Prescription gives an expected
yield per acre for each unit, except units 1-3, 13, 14, 22,
31-34. The volume values in Table A-3 are the product of the
yield per acre and unit acreage for units projected in the Sil-
viculturalist's Prescription. Volumes for the remaining units
were calculated with the most appropriate yield tables prepared
for the Flathead's FORPLAN analysis (USDA, 1981a).^
Species Composition; The Silviculturalist's prescription calls
for planting of larch and Douglas fir and expects natural lodge-
pole regeneration. The silviculturalist expects to attain a
1:1;1 ratio of these species, and emphasis on removal of the
lodgepole on the final commercial thin (Wilson, 1982). It is
assumed here that units receiving one commercial thin will have
at harvest a species composition of 50% lodgepole for the com
mercial thin and 25% lodgepole for the regeneration harvest,
while units receiving two commercial thins will have compositions
of 50% lodgepole for the first thinning, 75% lodgepole on the
second thinning, and 100% larch-Douglas fir on the regeneration
harvest. For units receiving their first regeneration harvest
1 The first regeneration harvest used Existing Yield Table 56 for
units 1-3 and Existing Yield Table 35 for units 13,14 and 22. Subsequent thinning and regeneration harvests used Regenerated Yield Table 5 for units 1-3 and Regenerated Yield Table 7 for units 13, 14, 22, 31-34. The yields in these tables are in cubic feet and were converted to board feet using conversion factors in the Flathead FORPLAN data base.
during the second (rather than initial) entry, the species
composition is projected from the stand composition and removal
pattern outlined in the Silviculturalist's Diagnosis and Pre
scription. Harvest volumes for years 2002, 2012 and 2082 are
100% larch-Douglas fir, years 2042 and 2052 are 59% lodgepole,
and year 2062 is 75% lodgepole, except as footnoted.^
d.b.h.; Expected d.b.h. for each unit was projected using the
yield tables in the Flathead FORPLAN Economics Coefficient
Documentation (USDA 1981a). The appropriate yield table was
selected on the basis of productivity (by Habitat Type Group)
and management intensity shown for each unit in the Silvicul
turalist's Diagnosis and Prescription.
1 EYT 35 was used for all first regeneration cuts and overstory
removals except units 1-3, which used EYT 56. RYT 7 was used for the remaining harvests, except; units 12 (second part), 17, 23 and 36-RYT 4; units 18, 24 and 30-RYT 5; unit 38-RYT 8.
uni
1
2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9
10 1 1 12 12 13 U 15 16 17 1 8
19 20 21 22 23
TABLE A-3
Projected Volume, Species Composition and d.b.h. for Future Harvests, by Unit
2002 (100% L-DF) rabf
2012 (100% L-DF)
20A2 (50% LP)
2052 •(50% LP)
2062 (75% LP)
2082 (100% L-DF)
dbh mbf dbh mbf dbh mbf dbh mbf dbh mbf dbh
11 .1 8.06^ 9.5 11 .1 - - - — - 16.12 9.5 - -
11 .1 - - - - - 29.55^ 9.5 - -
- - 22.43 10.7 - - 23.06 13.3 110.92 15.6 12.2 - 98.67 10.7 - - 101.44 13.3 488.05 15.6 12.2 - 8.97 10.7 - - 9.22 13.3 44.37 15.6 12.2 - 116.61 10.7 - - 119.89 13.3 567.78 15.6 12.2 - 49.34 10.7 - - 50.72 13.3 244.02 15.6 12.2 - 304.98 10.7 - - 313.55 13.3 1 ,508.51 15.6 - - 345.35 10.7 - - 355.05 13.3 1 ,708.17 15.6 - - 53.82 10.7 - - 55.33 13.3 266.21 15.6 - - 76.25 10.7 - - 78.39 13.3 377.13 15.6 - - - - - 65.03 12.0 - - 312.94 15.6
12.2 - - - - - 55.49^ 10.7 76.42® 13.3 12.2 - - - - - 44.39 10.7 61 .13 13.3 12.2 - 210.80 10.7 - - 216.72 13.3 1 ,042.65 15.6 - - 520.26 10.7 - - 534.88 13.3 2 ,573.34 15.6 — — — — — 30.01
50.02 12.0 10.6
— — 144.43" 240.72
15.6 13.8
- - 417.11 10.7 - - 428.82 13.3 2 ,063.11 15.6 - - 112.12 10.7 - - 115.23 13.3 554.60 15.6
12.2 - 215.28 10.7 - - 221.33 13.3 1 ,064.83 15.6 12.2 - - - - - 136.88 10.7 188.49^ 13.3 - - - - 65.03 10.6 - - 312.94 15.6
21 .99 43.35 61 .04
118.80 9.20
119.89 59.40 312.80
151 .67: 119.50 216.20
259.20 280.59
U)
TABLE A-3 Continued
2002 2012 2042 2052 2062 2082
(100% L-DF) (100% L-DF) (50% LP) (50% LP) (75% LP) (100% L--DF)
unit mbf dbh mbf dbh mbf dbh mbf dbh mbf dbh mbf dbh
2k 35.01 10.6 _ 168.50^ 13.8
30 _ — — - - 105.04 10.6 p - 505.51g 13.8
31 96.60 15.7 100.80 16.0 - - - - 51.79^ 10.7 71.32 13.3
32 42.00 15.7 21 .00 16.0 - - - - 18.50^ 10.7 25.47g 13.3
33 124.20 15.7 129.60 16.0 - - - - 66.59^ 10.7 91.70^ 13.3
34 12.20 15.7 5.30 16.0 - - - - 3.70 10.7 5.09 13.3
35 27.00 15.T - - 22.43 10.7 - - 23.06 13.3 110.92 , 15.6
36 _ — — - - 130.05 12.0 - - 625.87 15.6
37 224.00 15.7 — — 179.40 10.7 - - 184.44 13.3 887.36 15.6
38 - — - - 192.86 9.5 - - 198.27 11.8 953.91 13.8
NOTE: L-DF = larch & Douglas fir, LP = lodgepole pine
50% spruce/other
*^35% spruce/other
So% LP
^25% LP
®75% LP
Unit 12 is divided into two seperate portions receiving different management regimens by the Sil-
vlculturallst's Diagnosis and Prescription.
55
Table A-4 uses data from Table A-3 to show total volume by
species for each future harvest. The volumes are rounded to the
nearest ten thousand board feet.
TABLE A-4
Future Harvest Volume by Species (m.b.f.)
Species 2002 2012 2042 2052 2062 2082
L-DF 2,170 260 1 ,470 245 930 16,060 LP 0 0 1 ,470 245 2,540 1 ,340 S-0 120 0 0 0 0 0
Total 2,290 260 2,940 490 3,470 17,400
Now that future harvest volumes by species are known, current
weighted lumber prices may be calculated for each harvest. This is
shown in Table A-5 using species and volume data from Table A-4, and
lumber prices from the 1/29/82 letter to FSM 2420 {Combes, 1982).
The values for lumber price, log scale, appearing in the last two
columns of Table A-5 have been deflated to first quarter 1980 dollars
using the GNP Implicit Price indices 171.23 4- 199.58, and to first
quarter 1978 dollars with the indices 147.05 t 199.58. Lumber price,
log scale, must be in 1980 dollars for use in the stumpage valuation
equation, while the present discounted value analysis in Appendix F
uses 1978 dollars.
56
TABLE A-5
Weighted Lumber Prices for Future Harvests
Species % Volume
2002
LP, l.s. 1981$
LP, l.s. 1980$
LP, l.s. 1978$
L-DF S-0
95 5
Total Weighted Value/m.b.f.
301 .1 4 294.47
245.45 12.63
258.08 221.64
L-DF 100
2012
301 .14 258.36 221.88
L-DF LP
50 50
Total Weighted Value/m.b.f.
2042
301 .14 272.27
129.18 116.80
245.98 211 .24
L-DF LP
50 50
Total Weighted Value/m.b.f.
2052
301 .14 272.27
129.18 116.80
245.98 211.24
L-DF LP
27 73
Total Weighted Value/m.b.f.
2062
301 .14 272.27
69.76 170.52
240.28 206.35
L-DF LP
92 8
2082
301 .14 272.27
237.69 18.69
Total Weighted Value/m.b.f. 256.38 220.18
At last, all the necessary information is available to allow
computation of current stumpage values for future harvests. Table A-6
shows variable values and results of this computation, using the
simplified valuation equation derived earlier:
Y = -288.60 + 0.3814X, - 0.4954x^ + 101.36x^ + 0.6037x„ 1 J D O
57
The values for the independent variables shown inTable A-6 are taken
from the following sources:
= weighted lumber price, log scale (first quarter 1980
dollars) from Table A-5
x^ = % volume jammer logged from Table A-2 (units jammer logged),
Table A-3 (volume for each jammer unit) divided by total
harvested volume (Table A-4)
x^ = natural log of weighted d.b.h. from data in Table A-3 D
x_ = volume per acre harvested (m.b.f.) from Table A-A (total o
volume) divided by total acres harvested in Table A-2
Y (first quarter 1980 dollars) is converted in the final column to
stumpage value in first quarter 19T8 dollars with the GNP Implicit
Price indices; 147.05 t 171.23.
TABLE A-6
Derivation of Current Stumpage Value for Future Harvests
Y SV (1st qtr (1st qtr
Year x^ x^ x^ x^ 1980$) 1978$)
2002 258.08 2.2 2.565 5.9 72.29 62.08 2012 258.36 11 .5 2.773 6.8 89.42 76.79 2042 245.98 1 .7 2.398 4.5 52.24 45.12 2052 245.98 24.5 2.398 5.1 39.22 33.68 2062 240.28 2.3 2.565 4.5 64.61 55.49 2082 256.38 4.9 2.708 20.4 93.55 80.34
The current stumpage values derived for each harvest in Table
A-6 can now be converted to future stumpage values incorporating the
projected increases in lumber price, production costs and overrun.
This is done below for each future harvest using the relationships
mentioned earlier:
58
^ ̂ 0-n LP = LP- X b„ n 0 0-n
SV = LP - PC n n n
Combining these equations gives the equation used in Table A-7:
SV = (LP^ X a) - [(LP_ - SV^) X b ] n o 0 0
Current weighted lumber price (LP^) is taken from Table A-5. Current
sturapage value (SV^) is found in Table A-6. Lumber price and pro
duction cost multiplicative factors for each harvest are taken from
1 the Flathead FORPLAN Adams and Haynes projections.
Finally, the projected dollar benefits for each future harvest
can be calculated for each year by simply multiplying the future
stumpage values in Table A-7 by the total volumes in Table A-4.. The
results appear in Table A-8. Benefits are attributed to the end of
the fiscal year in which they accrue and thus the dates listed below
are one year later than the actual harvest.
1 Year 2002 uses projections for the period 1980-2010 (median
year 2005); year 2012 uses projections for the period 1980-2020 (median year 2015); the remaining harvests use projections for the period 1980-2040 and beyond (median year 2035) because this is the last projection period in the Flathead data and the Adams and Haynes projections predict no increases after 2043 (Merzenich, 1979).
59
TABLE A-7
Projected Future Sturapage Values (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Current Lum. Price Current Stump. Val. Harv. Lum. Price Mult. Fact. Stump. Val. Mult . Fact. Date (LPo) (a) (SVq) (b)
2002 221.64 1 .653 62.08 1 .509 2012 221.88 1.863 76.79 1 .547 2042 211.24 2.188 45.12 1 .595 2052 211.24 2.188 33.68 1 .595 2062 206.35 2.188 55.49 1 .595 2082 220.18 2.188 80.34 1 .595
Future Stump. Val.
(SB )
125.99 188.91 197.23 178.98 210.87 258.71
TABLE A-8
Re-entry Benefits (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Volume Stumpage Value Total Benefit Year (m.b.f.) x ($/m.b.f.) = ($)
2003 2,290 125.99 288,517 2013 260 188.91 49,117 2043 2,940 197.23 579,856 2053 490 178.98 87,700 2063 3,470 210.87 731,719 2083 17,400 258.71 4,507,554
60
Appendix B
ROAD COST ESTIMATES
Road costs will be incurred both during the initial road con
struction for the Ketchikan Sale and during reconstruction for each
subsequent management entry. Since the roads in the sale area will
be closed during periods of inactivity ranging from 10 to 40 years,
road reconstruction costs will be significant. Road maintenance
costs during management activities are assumed to be covered by pur
chaser deposits.
In addition to construction or reconstruction costs incurred
by contractors, road costs must also include those costs incurred by
the Forest Service for survey, design, layout and administration.
Road costs estimates for each road segment are developed in Tables
B-1 and B-2 with assumptions and data sources explained below.
Table B-3 displays total expected road costs by year (in first quarter
1978 dollars adjusted from Tables B-1 and B-2 with the GNP Implicit
Price Deflator Indices: (147.05 7 171.23) for the initial entry,
and for each re-entry scheduled by the silviculturalist's prescrip
tions (Wilson, 1981), as shown in Table A-1 (Appendix A).
It will be assumed here that the road system planned for the
Ketchikan Sale will not be extended in the future to access additional
61
timber stands. The original proposal presented in the EAR called
1 for 4.82 miles of additional road segments (Schluessler, 1981),
which were deleted in the EAR Supplement as mitigation for wildlife
habitat.
Discussions with the Forest highway engineer and District
timber staff officer involved in planning the Ketchikan Sale indicated
that, due to terrain and quality of timber stands, extensions of the
road system beyond what was originally planned in the EAR would
probably not be feasible (Schluessler, 1982a and Armstrong, 19821).
Since the potential extensions were deleted as wildlife habitat miti
gation, it is assumed that this habitat will remain unroaded for the
duration of the planning horizon in this analysis.
Initial Road Construction
Road constuction costs for the Ketchikan Sale are predicted
here through the use of a recently developed multiple regression
equation (Jackson and Loveless, 1981). This equation was chosen over
the Engineer's Cost Estimate in the Sale Prospectus for several rea
sons: 1 ) The equation is based on 52 road construction and recon
struction contracts let by the Forest Service Region One during fiscal
years 1979 and 1980 (adjusted for inflation), and predicts the winning
bid in first quarter 1980 dollars, while the Engineer's Cost Estimate
is based on various component cost revisions ranging from December
1979 to July 1981, with no adjustment for inflation. The equation
''TWO roads extending north along the west side of Ketchikan Creek from road 10428, three roads extending north into the Colts Creek drainage from road 10426 and an extension of road 10426 to the southern end of Ketchikan Ridge. See map.
62 is derived from actual transaction evidence rather than component
cost estimates and is as accurate as the Engineer's Cost Estimate
(Jackson, 1982). The equation has an adjusted of .8553 and a
standard deviation of 25.19% of theraean predicted bid, or a confidence
interval of ±50.38% at the 95% confidence level. There is no analysis
of the statistical reliability of the Engineer's Cost Estimate. (The
Engineer's Cost Estimate for the original Ketchikan sale was $569,912
and the comparable bid predicted by the regression equation [total Y
from Table B-1 ] is $591 ,329, a 3.7% difference). 2) The equation
predicts initial road construction costs using a relatively limited
set of standardized inputs, which for this analysis were taken from
the Schedule of Items in the Ketchikan Sale contract. 3) The equation
can be used to predict future reconstruction costs for each re-entry
from existing data, without resorting to the complex recalculations
which would by necessary if an Engineer's Cost Estimate were used.
The Jackson and Loveless equation can be expressed as:
Y = 1975.26(d) + 2534.76x, + 1.26x„ + .37x_ + 7.1Ax, + .12x^ 1 2 3 4 5
where ;•
Y = Total road construction cost in 1st quarter 1980 dollars (predicted winning bid)
d = Total length of road in miles
x^ = Total acres clearing and grubbing
x^ = Total cubic yards excavation
x^ = Total station yards haul
x^ = Total tons gravel
X = Sura of the products of squared diameter and length for each size class of culvert (B D^xL)
63
Table B-1 shows the computation of total road cost for the Ket
chikan Sale. Values for each variable in the above equation, taken
from the sale contract, are listed first. Given next are the products
of the variable values and the corresponding coefficient in the above
equation. Haul and gravel values are not shown because none were given
in the schedule of items. The predicted bid is then adjusted downward
to allow for Bacon-Davis wage rates^ and recent trends in. road con-
2 struction bidding (Adj. Y). Total road costs by road segment are de
rived by adding these construction costs to Forest Service engineering
and administration costs, which were estimated in the development of
FORPLAN to be $6200 per mile (first quarter 1978 dollars) on the Flat
head National Forest (USDA 1981a, p. E-5 9 of 11). This converts to
7220 first quarter 1980 dollars using the GNP Implicit Price Deflator
Indicies: 171.23 t 147.05. Completion dates come from the Prospectus.
1 Construction contracts let by the federal government must comply
with wage rates set by the Bacon-Davis Act, while purchasers building roads may use lower rates prevailing in the area. This is why the Engineer's Cost Estimate (based on Bacon-Davis rates) is higher than the Purchaser Credit Limit (the estimated cost to a purchaser). The original Engineer's Cost Estimate $569,912 while the Purchaser Credit Limit was $555,833; 97.53% of the Engineer's Estimate. Since the Jackson and Loveless equation is based on contracts using Bacon-Davis rates, the predicted bid (Y) is reduced by the factor .9753.
2 Based on this trend in road construction bidding (analyzed by the Northern Region Office) the Purchaser Credit Limit for the Ketchikan Sale was reduced from the original $555,833 to $463,897; 83.46% of the original estimate (Armstrong, 1982b). Thus, the predicted bid (Y) is further reduced by the factor .8346 (giving a total reduction factor of .9753 X .8346 = .8140). One possible explanation for this downward trend is that the recessionary economy has created a shortage of construction projects, and thus a surplus of construction equipment. Faced with fixed capital costs, contractors may be lowering their bids below normal in an attempt to keep their equipment working, generating cash flows to service debts.
TABLE B-1
Initial Entry Road Costs :ist quarter 1980 dollars)
Coefficient Rd #1046-1
value $ Rd #1046-2
value $ Rd #1047
value $
d (total miles) (acres clear and grub)
X (yards^ excavation) X (X[D^ X L] culverts) Y (Predicted Bid) Adj. Y (tot. const, cost [Y x .814] F.S. eng. & admin. ($7220/mi.)
TOTAL ROAD COST
.98 4.70 4706 24,960
.98
1,935.75 5.30 10,468.88 11,913.37 24.20 61,341.19 5,929.56 22,246 28,029-96 29,635.20 699,048 83,885.76 49,413.88 183,725.79 40,222.18 149,603.86 7,075.62 5.30 38,266.00 47,298 . 187,870
1.76 3,476.46 9.01 22,838,19 13,539 17,059.14 392,112 47,053.44
90,427.22 73,632.89
1 .76 12,707.20 86,340
Completion Date 1982 1983 1983
Rd #114 Rd #1048-1 Rd #1048-2 Coefficient value $ value $ value $
d (total miles) 3.51 6,933.16 1.88 3,713.49 1.36 2,686.35 x^ (acres clear and grub) 19.39 49,149.00 9.84 24,942.04 7.40 18,757.22 X2 (yards' excavation) 16,795 21,161.70 16,935 21,338.10 15,549 19,591.74 X5 (S[D' X L] culverts) 193,104 23,172.48 389,952 46,794.24 246,024 29,522.88 Y (Predicted Bid) 100,416.34 96,787.82 70,558.19 Adj. Y (tot. const, cost [Y x .814]) 81,766.81 78,812.19 57,453.98 F.S. eng. & admin. ($7220/mi.) 3.51 25,342.80 1.88 13,573.60 1.36 9,819.20
TOTAL ROAD COST 107,110 92,386 67,273
Completion Date 1982 1982 1983
65
Future Road Reconstruction
After the initial entry, current plans are to close all area
roads for a 20 year period, followed by a re-entry for timber harvest
and management activities. Similar re-entries could occur thereafter
in periods ranging from 10 to 40 years (Wilson, 1981). The project
engineer expects reconstruction costs after 20 years of closure to be
essentially limited to clearing the road bed of vegetation and repair
ing any damage to drainage structures. After a 40 year closure, it was
considered uncertain whether or not culverts would have to be replaced
(Turner, 1982). In order to use the Jackson and Loveless equation to
predict future reconstruction costs, it is assumed here that recon
struction activity will be limited to clearing and grubbing an average
14 foot wide roadway during each entry, with replacement of all cul
verts during the first entry made more than 60 years after the initial
entry. Forest Service engineering and administration costs for recon
struction were estimated to be approximately half of the value used for
new roads in FORPLAN (Schluessler, 1982b).
Table B-2 shows expected road costs associated with future re
entries, by road segment (both with and without culvert replacement).
Variable values (except x-| ) are taken form Table B-1 . Costs associated
with Road #114 are not shown in Table B-2 because it is a system road
which should receive normal maintenance, and therefore may not require
reconstruction attributable solely to timber management in the Ketchi
kan area. Acreage cleared and grubbed is calculated by multiplying
average road width (14 feet) by road length in feet and dividing by
square feet per acre (43,560).
TABLE B-2
Re-entry Road Costs (1st quarter 1980 dollars)
Rd #10A6-1 Rd #1046-2 Rd #1047 Coefficient value | value $ value $
d (total miles) .98 1,935.75 5.30 10,A68.88 1.76 3,713.49 (acres clear and grub) 1.66 4,207.70 8.99 22,787.49 2.99 7,578.49
F.S. eng. & adm. ($36l0/rai.) .98 3,537.80 5.30 19,133.00 1.76 6,353.60 RECONSTRUCTION WITHOUT CULVERTS 9,681.25 52,389.37 17,408.99
xc; (£[D' X L] culverts) 246,960 29,635.20 699,048 83,885.76 392,112 47,053.44 RECONSTRUCTION WITH CULVERTS 39,316.45 136,275.13 64,462.43
Coefficient Rd #1048-1
value $ Rd #1048-2
value $
d (total miles) x-| (acres clear and grub) F.S. eng. & adm. ($36l0/mi.)
RECONSTRUCTION WITHOUT CULVERTS
X5 ("[D^ X L] culverts) RECONSTRUCTION WITH CULVERTS
1 .88 3.19 1 .88
389,952
3,713.49 8,085.88 6,786.80 18,586.17
46,794.24 65,380.41
1 .36 2.31 1 .36
246,024
2,686.35 5,855.30 4,909.60 13,451.25
29,522.88 42,974.13
cr-o
67
TABLE B-3
Total Road Costs (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Rd. Rd. Rd. Rd. Rd. Rd. Total Year #1046-1 #1046-2 #1047 #114 #1048-1 #1048-2 Cost
1982 40,619 91,985 79,340 211,944 1983 — 161,340 74,148 — — 57,773 293,261 2002 8,314 44,991 14,951 — 15,962 11,552 95,770 2012 — — — — 15,962 11,552 27,514 2042 33,764 117,031 55,359 — 56,148 — 262,302 2052 — 44,991 — — 15,962 36,906 97,859 2062 8,314 44,991 14,951 — 15,962 11,552 95,770 2082 8,314 44,991 14,951 — 15,962 11,552 95,770
68
Appendix C
SALE PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION
COST ESTIMATES
The Flathead FORPLAN Economic Coefficient Documentation (USDA,
1981a) is the source for sale preparation (p. E-1E 13) and adminis
tration (p. E-1e 16) costs used here. The documentation arrays
estimated costs for these activities, on a per acre bases, according
to harvest method, unit size and yarding method projected for the
Ketchikan Sale area over the next 100 years. Table C-1 was constructed
using data from Table A-1, and appropriate costs from Appendix E in
the Flathead coefficient documentation.
Table C-2 estimates sale preparation costs for each harvest
and Table C-3 estimates sale administration costs for each harvest.
Both tables use the cost classes from Table C-1 and acreages from
Table A-1. (It should be noted that these costs are based on Forest-
wide averages applied to site-specific factors. Actual preparation
costs for the Ketchikan Sale may be much higher than average due to
the sale's highly controversial nature and extended appeals process,
which have not be representative of Forest-wide average timber sales.
The Forest Service could not give an estimate for the appeals costs
attributable to the Ketchikan Sale, but off-the-cuff estimates of
Region-wide average timber sale appeals costs ranged from $2,000 -
$5,000. It was generally agreed that the appeals costs for the Ket-
chikan Sale were probably higher than average.)
69
TABLE C-1
Sale Preparation and Administration Cost Classes
(1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Cost Site Factors Cost($) Class Harv. Methodl Unit Size (acres) Yard. Method Prep. Admin
AIT CC-ST 0-2 Tractor 152 45 A2T CC-ST 3-10 Tractor 115 37 A2J CC-ST 3-10 Jammer 136 53 A3T CC-ST 11-20 Tractor 92 30 A3J CC-ST 11-20 Jammer 97 45 AAT CC-ST >20 Tractor 84 23 BIT SW-CT 0-2 Tractor 234 53 B1J SW-CT 0-2 Jammer 273 68 B2T SW-CT 3-10 Tractor 140 45 B2J SW-CT 3-10 Jammer 157 60 B3T SW-CT 11-20 Tractor 102 37 B3J SW-CT 11-20 Jammer 109 53 B4T SW-CT >20 Tractor 86 23 C1T OR 0-2 Tractor 152 53 C1J OR 0-2 Jammer 172 68 C2T OR 3-10 Tractor 115 45 C2J OR 3-10 Jammer 125 60 C3T OR 11-20 Tractor 95 37 C4T OR >20 Tractor 91 23
^CC.= clear cut; ST = seed tree; SW = cial thin; OR - overstory removal.
shelterwood; CT = commer-
TABLE C-2
Sale Preparation Costs {1st quarter 1978 dollars)
1981 2001 2011 2041 2051 2061 2081
Cost $ $ Class $/acre ac $ ac $ ac $ ac $ ac $ ac $ ac $
AIT 152 2 304
A2T 115 5 575 9 1 ,035 — 10 1 ,150
A2J 136 21 2,856 — — — — — — — — — — 21 2,856
A3T 92 43 3,956 38 3,496 — 54 4,968 A3J 97 12 1 ,164 — — — — — — — — — — 12 1 ,164 AAT BA 401 33,684 22 1 ,848 — 652 54,768
BIT 234 2 468 2 468 — — 2 468 — —
B1J 273 1 273 1 273 — — — — — — 1 273 1 273 B2T 140 14 1 ,848 — — — — 10 1,400 — — 19 2,660 — —
B2J 157 5 785 5 785 — — — — 21 3,297 5 785 5 785 B3T 102 81 8,262 32 3,264 — — 28 2,856 26 2,652 98 9,996 59 6,081 B3J 109 12 1,308 — — 12 1 ,308 — —
B4T 86 288 24,768 505 43,430 47 4,042 542 46,612 37 3,182
C1T 152 — — 2 304 — — — — — — — — — —
C1J 172 1 172 C2T 115 — — 5 575 —
C2J 125 — 5 625 C3T 95 — — 11 1 ,045 32 3,040 C4T 91 — — 262 23,742
Total Cost 78,751 36,467 3,837 49,462 9,991 62,102 72,531
TABLE C-3
Sale Administration Costs (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
1983* 2002 2012 2042 2052 2062 2082 Cost Class $/acre ac $ ac $ ac "$ ac $ a^ $ ac $ ac $
AIT 42 2 90 A2T 37 5 185 • 9 333 10 370 A2J 53 21 1,113 21 1,113 A3T 30 43 1 ,290 38 1 ,140 54 1 ,620 A3J 45 12 540 12 540 A4T 23 401 9,223 22 506 652 14,996 BIT 53 2 106 — — — — 2 106 — — 2 106 — —
B1J 68 1 68 1 68 — — — — — 1 68 1 68 B2T 45 14 630 — — — — 10 450 — — 19 855 — —
B2J 60 5 300 5 300 — — — — 21 1 ,260 5 300 5 300 B3T 37 81 2,997 32 1 ,184 — — 28 1,036 26 962 98 3,626 59 2,183 B3J 53 — — — — — — 12 636 — — 12 636 — —
B4T 23 288 6,624 505 11,615 47 1 ,081 542 12,466 37 851 C1T 53 — — 2 106 — — — — — — — — —
CU 68 1 68 C2T 45 — — 5 225 C2J 60 5 300 C3T 37 — — 11 407 32 1 ,184 C4T 23 — — 262 6 ,026 — — — — — — — — — —
TOTAL COST: 23,076 10 ,295 1 ,552 13,843 3 ,303 18,057 22,131
* 20% in 1982, 40% in 1983 and 40% in 1984.
72
Appendix D
•SITE PREPARATION AND FUEL TREATMENT
COST ESTIMATES
Economic analyses of timber management often attempt to seperate
site preparation costs (those associated with regeneration) from fuel
treatment or slash disposal costs (those associated with fire hazard
reduction). The seperation can be difficult and subjective because
single activities often accomplish both objectives (e.g. broadcast
burning both prepares a site for planting and reduces the fuel load)
and funds collected or appropriated for one objective are often used
to accomplish the other (Merzenich, 1979). It is often argued that
such a seperation must be made, however, so that only regeneration
costs will be charged to timber management while slash disposal costs
are charged to fire management.
No such seperation is made in this analysis. Both fuel treat
ment and site preparation costs are included here for the following
reasons. Both regeneration costs and slash disposal costs are
quantifiable and will be incurred as a direct result of timber manage
ment activities. None of the costs used here would be incurred in
the absence of timber harvesting. While the benefits associated with
fuel treatment are not accounted here, in so far as they are quan
tifiable they are predominately attributable to the timber resource.
It must be remembered that many costs associated with the Ketchikan
Sale have not been quantified and accounted for here. Furthermore,
wildfire can also have minimal or even beneficial impacts on non-
commodity resource values such as wildlife habitat.
Site preparation and fuel treatment costs are taken from the
Flathead FORPLAN Economic Coefficient Documentation (USDA, 1981a).
These costs vary according to site factors such as unit size, harvest
method and percent slope. Table D-1 shows cost classes for projected
activities and site factors (as shown in Table A-2) in the Ketchikan
Sale area for the next 100 years. Percent slope is assumed to be
less than 40% for all units except those which are jammer logged.
It is assumed that all shelterwood or seedtree units will be dozer
piled (D4 tractor), except cost class 7, following the instructions
in the Silviculturalist's Diagnosis and Prescription (Wilson, 1981).
Zero costs are assumed for precommercial and commercial thins.
Expected total costs for site preparation and fuel treatment
are shown by year in Table D-2. Cost values are taken from Table D-1
while acres treated are derived from Table A-1, the Silviculturalist'
Diagnosis and Prescription (Wilson, 1981), and the current sale
package (Armstrong, 1982b).
74
TABLE D-1
Site Preparation and Fuel Treatment Cost Classes (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Cost Class Unit Size (ac) Harvest Method % Slope Cost/Acre 1 >19 CC <40 254 2 5-19 CC <40 267 3 5-19 CC >40 1,000 4 >19 SW-ST <40 141 5 5-19 SW-ST <40 148 6 0-.4 SW-ST <40 199 7 <<<<<<<<<<<(Shelterwood Underburn)>>»>>>>>» 1,000 8 «<«« (O^erstory Removal-Pile Burning)»»» 10
NOTE: CC = clear cut; SW = shelterwood; ST = seedtree.
TABLE D-2
Site Preparation and Fuel Treatment Costs (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Cost 1984* 2003 2013 2083 Class $/acre ac $ ac $ ac $ ac $
1 254 31 7,874 37 9,398 — 31 7,874 2 267 37 7,879 29 7,209 — — 37 1 ,879 3 1 ,000 10 1 ,000 10 1 ,000 4 141 276 38,916 276 38,916 5 148 21 3,108 54 7,992 — — 21 3,108 6 199 2 398 4 796 — — 2 398 7 1 ,000 — — — — 38 38,000 — —
8 10 — — 299 2,990 Total Cost 51,296 28,385 38,000 51 ,296
*20% in 1983, 40% in 1984 and 40% in 1985.
75
Appendix E
PLANTING, STOCKING SURVEY AND PRECOMMERCIAL
THINNING COST ESTIMATES
Cost values for planting, stocking surveys and precommercial
thinning are taken from the Flathead FORPLAN Economic Coefficient
Documentation (USDA, 1981a). Total planting costs (first quarter
1978 dollars) on the Flathead National Forest average $158 per acre
for a full 10' X 10' planting and $118 per acre for a planting of
200 trees per acre (this is slightly less than 20' x 20' planting
which would require 218 trees per acre). The Silviculturalist's
Prescription makes regeneration recommendations including 9' x 9',
10' X 10', 12' X 12', 14' X 14' plantings and natural regeneration
(Wilson, 1981). Although these alternatives do not correspond
exactly to the cost classes used in the Flathead FORPLAN, costs for
9' x 9' and 12' x 12' plantings are assumed to be equivalent to
10' X 10' planting, and 14' x 14' planting is assumed to be equiva
lent to 200 trees per acre.
Actual costs would probably be slightly higher. Planting costs
may also be underestimated here because planting is assumed to be
accomplished the second year after a regeneration harvest with 100%
success, and no allowance is made here for the above average hand-
scalping which will probably be required. (In order to reduce slash
disposal costs, the sale package was revised over the winter to
require tree length yarding on most clearcut units. This would
eliminate the need for most of the expensive broadcast burning
originally scheduled for those units, but would increase the need
for handscalping during planting).
Stocking surveys and certifications occur over a four to five
year period after planting. Costs (first quarter 1978 dollars) are
approximately $5 per acre for natural regeneration, $6 per acre for
overstory removals, and $7 per acre for plantings (USDA, 1981a,
E-1E3, E-5). For dating purposes, stocking survey costs are assumed
to be centered on the second year after planting.
Total precommercial thinning costs average $178 per acre on
the Flathead (USDA, 1981a, E-1E 7). Where scheduled, precommercial
thinning is assumed to occur 22 years after the regeneration harvest.
Tables E-1 , E-2 and E-3 give total expected planting, stocking
survey and precommercial thinning costs as scheduled by the Silvi-
culturalist's Prescription.
TABLE E-1
Planting Costs (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
1985 a
2004
$/acre acres $/acre $ acres $
TOTAL COST:
137 434
118 16,166 158 71,732
87,898^
38 84
118 158
4,484 13,272
17,756
3, Following the staggered initial harvest, assume 20% 1984,
40% 1985, 40% 1986.
77
TABLE E-2
Stocking Survey Costs (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
1987*^ 2006 2016 acres $/acre $ acres $/acre $ acres $/acre
162 5 810 37 5 185 5 — 6 — 273 6 1 ,644 38 6
591 7 4,137 85 7 595 — 7
TOTAL COST 4,947^^ 2,424 288
^Following the staggered initial harvest, assume 20% 1986, 40% 1987, 40% 1988.
TABLE E-3
Precomraercial Thinning Costs (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
acres $/acre $ acres $/acre $
753 178 134,034 122 178 21,716
78
Appendix F
PRESENT VALUE
The present net value and benefit/cost ratio for the Ketchikan
Sale can now be calculated using the data generated in the preceeding
appendices. Table F-1 lists total expected costs by year for: sale
preparation (Table C-2), sale administration (Table C-3), road costs
(Table B-3), site preparation and fuel treatment (Table D-2), planting
(Table E-1), stocking survey (Table E-2) and precoramercial thinning
(Table E-3). These costs are discounted to the present for discount
rates 4%, 7 1/8% and 10% in Table F-2 using the formula;
VQ = Ml . i)"
where:
VQ = discounted present value
= total value at year n
n = year of accrual
i = discount rate
The same formula was used in Table F-3 to discount the expected
benefits (from Tables A-1 and A-8). The present net values and benefit/
cost ratios for the Ketchikan Sale (Case 1 and Case 2, p. 32) were
derived from Tables F-2 and F-3. First quarter 1978 dollars were con
verted to fourth quarter 1981 dollars with the GNP Implicit Price
Deflator Indices: 199.58 t 147.05.
Year
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2011 2012 2013 2016 2022 2041 2042 2051 2052 2061 2062 2081 2082 2083
79
TABLE F-1
Total Expected Costs (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Sale Sale Road Site Stck Total Prep Admin Costs Prep Planting Surv Thinning Cost
78,751 — — 78,751 — 4,615 211,944 — — — 216,559 — 9,231 293,267 10,260 — — — 303,521 — 9,230 — 20,518 17,580 — — 47,328 — — — 20,519 35,159 — — 55,615 — — — — 35,159 990 — 36,149 — — — — — 1 ,979 — 1 ,979 — — — — — 1 ,978 — 1 ,978
36,467 — — — — — — 36,467 — 10,295 95,770 — — — 134,034 240,099 — — — 28,385 — — — 28,385 — — — — 17,756 — — 17,756 — — — — — 2,424 — 2,424
3,837 — — — — — — 3,837 — 1 ,552 27,514 — — — — 29,066 — — — 38,000 — — — 38,000 — — — — — 228 — 228 — — — — — — 21 ,716 21,716
49,462 — — — — — — 49,462 - - 13,843 262,302 — — — — 276,145
9,991 — — — — — — 9,991 — 3,303 97,859 — — — — 101 ,162
62,102 — — — — — — 62,102 — 18,057 95,770 — — — — 113,827
75,531 — — — — — — 75,531 — 22,131 95,770 — — — — 117,901 — — — 51,296 — — — 51,296
80
TABLE F-2
Discounted Total Costs (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Total Discount Factor Discounted Cost
Year Cost 4% 7 1 /8% 10% 4% 7 1/8% 10%
1981 78,751 1 .040 1 .071 1 .100 81,901 84,342 86,626 1982 216,559 1 .000 1 .000 1 .000 216,559 216,559 216,559 1983 305,512 .9615 .9335 .9091 291,827 283,328 275,923 1984 47,328 .9246 .8714 .8264 43,759 41,242 39,112 1985 55,615 .8890 .8134 .7513 49,442 45,237 41 ,778 1986 36,149 .8548 .7593 .6830 30,900 27,448 24,690 1987 1 ,979 .8219 .7088 .6209 1 ,627 1 ,403 1 ,229 1088 1 ,978 .7903 .6617 .5645 1 ,563 1 ,309 1 ,117 2001 36,467 .4746 .2704 .1635 17,312 9,863 5,964 2002 240,099 .4564 .2525 .1486 109,581 60,625 35,679 2003 28,385 .4388 .2357 .1351 12,455 6,690 3,835 2004 17,756 .4220 .2200 .1228 7,493 3,906 2,180 2006 2,424 .3901 .1917 .1015 946 465 246 2011 3,837 .3207 .1359 .0630 1 ,231 533 242 2012 29,066 .3083 .1268 .0573 8,961 3,686 1 ,665 2013 38,000 .2965 .1184 .0521 11,267 4,499 1 ,980 2016 228 .2636 .0963 .0391 60 23 9 2022 21 ,716 .2083 .0637 .0221 4,523 1 ,383 480 2041 49,462 .0989 .0172 .0036 4,892 851 178 2042 276,145 .0951 .0161 .0033 26,261 4,446 911 2051 9,991 .0668 .0087 .0014 667 87 14 2052 101 ,162 .0642 .0081 .0013 6,495 819 132 2061 62,102 .0451 .0044 .0005 2,801 273 31 2062 113,827 .0434 .0041 .0005 4,940 467 57 2081 75,531 .0206 .0011 .0001 1 ,556 83 8 2082 117,901 .0198 .0010 .0010 2,334 118 12 2083 51,296 .0190 .0010 -.0001 3,975 51 5
DISCOUNTED TOTAL COST 942,368 799,776 740,702
81
TABLE F-3
Discounted Total Benefits (1st quarter 1978 dollars)
Discount Factor Discounted Benefit
Year Benefit 4% 7 1/8% 10% 4% 7 1/8% 10%
1983 111 ,410 .9615 .9335 .9091 107,121 104,002 101,283 1984 222.821 .9246 .8714 .8264 206,021 194,166 184,139 1985 222,821 .8890 .8134 .7513 198,088 181,242 167,405 2003 288,517 .4388 .2357 .1351 126,601 68,003 38,979 2013 49,117 .2965 .1184 .0521 14,565 5,815 2,559 2043 579,856 .0914 .0150 .0030 52,999 8,698 1 ,740 2053 87,700 .0617 .0075 .0012 5,411 658 105 2063 731,719 .0417 .0038 .0004 30,513 2,781 293 2083 731,719 .0190 .0010 .0001 85,530 4,502 450
DISCOUNTED TOTAL BENEFIT 826,847 569,867 496,953
82
REFERENCES
Adams, D.M., and Haynes, R.W. 1979. The 1980 softwood timber assessment market model: structure projections and policy simulations. Unpublished report on file at the USFS Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Portland, Ore. (Cited in Merzenich, 1979).
The projections for the Flathead N.F. are on file in the Flathead N.F. Supervisor's Office, Kalispell, Mont.
Amman, G.D., McGregor M.D., Cahill, D.B., and. Klein, W.H. 1977. Guidelines for reducing losses of lodgepole pine to the mountain pine beetle in unmanaged stands in the Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-36, Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.
Armit, D. 1966. Silvics and silviculture of lodgepole pine in the north central interior of British Columbia; a problem analysis. Brit. Columbia Forest Serv. Res. Note N. 40. Victoria. {Cited in Peterman, 1978).
Armstrong, Bonner, 1981, Timber Staff, Glacier View Ranger Dist. Flathead N.F., Columbia Falls, Mont. Tel. Con., 4/27/81.
. 1982a Per. Com. 1/4/82.
. 1982b Per. Com. 4/1/82.
Averill, R.D., Bunter, J.E., Lister, O.K., and Sonnen, D.H. 1977. Guidelines for estimating the benefits of mountain pine beetle control projects. Tech. Rpt. R2-11, Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest Service, Lakewood, Colo.
Barlow, T.J., Helfand," G.E., Orr, T.W., and Stoel, T.B. Jr. 1980. Giving away the national forests: an analysis of U.S. Forest Service timber sales below cost. Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
Brown, J.K. 1975. Fire cycles and community dynamics in lodgepole pine forests. In Baumgartner, D.M., ed. Management of lodgepole pine ecosystems, Symp. Proc., pp. 429-456. Coop. Ext. Serv., Washington, St. Univ., Pullman, Wash. (Cited in Amman, et al, 1980).
Clements, F.E. 1910. The life history of lodgepole burn forests. USDA Forest Serv. Bull. No 79. U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
Washington D.C. (Cited in Peterman, 1978).
Cole, D.M. 1978. Feasibility of silvicultural practices for reducing losses to the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests. In Klbbee, D.L., et al, eds. Theory and Practice of mountain pine beetle management in lodgepole pine forests, Symp. Proc., pp. 140-147. Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Sta., Univ. of Id., Moscow, Id.
Cole, W.E., and Amman, G.D. 1980. Mountain pine beetle dynamics in lodgepole pine forests, part 1: course of an infestation. Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-89, Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., USDA Forest Service, Ogden, Utah,
Combes, J.A. 1982. Letter to FSM 2420 Timber Appraisal dated Jan. 29, 1982. On file in Timber Managment, Northern Region Office, USDA Forest Service, Missoula, Mont.
Corkran, C. 1980. A new look at the Douglas fir tussock moth. Forest Planning Nov., pp. 12-13+.
Crossley, D.I. 1956. Fruiting habits of lodgepole pine. Forest Res. Div. Tech. Note No. 34. Canada Dept. Northern Affairs and Natural Resources. (Cited in Peterman, 1978).
Davis, K.P. 1966. Forest Management; regulation and valuation. New York; McGraw-Hill.
Furniss, R.L. and Carolin, V.M. 1980. Western forest insects. Misc. Pub No., 1339, USDA Forest Service, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington D.C.
Hall, D. and Norgaard, R. 1973. On the timing and application of pesticides. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 55;198-201. (Cited in Irland, 1977).
Halvorsen, R. and Ruby, M.G. 1981. Evaluation of uncertain benefits and costs. Chapter 5 in Benefit-cost analysis of air pollution control, pp. 63-75. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
Hirshleifer, J.and Riley, J.G. 1979. The analytics of uncertainty and information — an expository survey, J. Econ. Lit. 17(4); 1375-1421 .
Hodgeboom, Fred. 1982. Timber Planner, Flathead N.F. Supervisor's Office, Kalispell, Mont. Per. Com., 2/4/82.
Irland, L.C. 1977. Notes on the economics of spruce budworm control. Tech. Note No. 67, School of Forest Resources, Univ. of Maine, Orono, Maine.
. 1980. Notes on the economics of forest pest managment. Forest Planning. Nov. pp. 8-11.
84
Jackson, D.H. 1982. Associate Professor, School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont. Per. Com., 4/30/82.
Jackson, D.H. and Loveless, R. 1981. Predicting forest road and bridge construction costs. Manuscript draft dated July 27, 1981. (School of Forestry, Univ. of Mont., Missoula, Mont.)
Johnson, N.E. 1963. Some economic considerations in planning control of insects affecting young forest trees. J. For. 61:426-429.
Jonkel, C.J. 1979. Ketchikan Creek: to cut or not. Border Grizzly Project Special Rpt. No. 33. School of Forestry, Univ. of Mont., Missoula, Mont.
Klein, W.H. 1978. Strategies and tactics for reducing losses in lodgepole pine to the mountain pine beetle by chemical and mechanical means. In Kibbee, K.L., et al, eds.. Theory and practice of mountian pine beetle management in lodgepole pine forests, Symp. Proc., pp. 148-158. Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Sta., Univ. of Id., Moscow, Id.
Krutilla, J.V. and Haigh, J.A. 1978. Integrated approach. Environmental Law, 8:385-395.
Lakes, G. 1982. Canadian coal mine opposition organizing. Mis-soulian (Mont.) 3/28/82, p. 15.
Latham, J.A. 1965. The effects of spacing on development of lodgepole pine in the Manning Park area of British Columbia, Vancouver. (Cited in Peterman, 1978).
Lotan, J.E. 1975. The role of cone serotiny in lodgepole pine forests. In Baumgartner, D.M., ed. Management of lodgepole pine ecosystems, Symp. Proc. pp. 471-495. Coop. Ext. Serv., Washington St. Univ., Pullman, Wash. (Cited in Peterman, 1978).
Marty, R.J. and Allison, G.R. 1950. Appraising white-pine weevil control opportunities. J. For. 58:203-206.
Mason, D.T. 1915. The management of lodgepole pine. For. Quart. 13:171-182. (Cited in Peterman, 1978).
Merzenich, J.P. 1979. Classifying forest land based upon its timber management potential: a case study of the Lolo National Forest. Master's thesis. School of Forestry, Univ. of Mont., Missoula, Mont.
Mikesell, R.F. 1977. The rate of discount for evaluating public projects. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C.
85
Newport, C.A. 1962. Economics of forest pest control. J. For. 60; 306-308.
Norgaard, R. 1976. The economics of improving pesticide use. Ann. Rev. Ent. 21!45-60.
O'Harra, D. 1982a. Room to roam. Missoulian (Mont.), 3/28/82, p. A-1.
. 1982b. The grizzly, people dilemma. Missoulian (Mont.), 3/28/82, p. A-1.
0'Toole, R. 1981. The 4% discount rate is too low — the Forest Service should learn from industry. Forest Planning. 2(3): 9-16.
Peterman, R.M. 1978. The ecological role of mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine forests. In Kibbe, D.L., et al, eds.. Theory and practice of mountain pine beetle management in lodgepole pine forests, Symp. Proc., pp. 16-26. Forest, Wildlife and Range Exp. Sta., Univ. of Id., Moscow, Id.
Pfister, R.D. and Daubenmire, R. 1975. Ecology of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.). In Baumgartner, D.M., ed.. Management of lodgepole pine ecosystems, Symp. Proc. pp. 27-46. Coop. Est. Serv., Washington St. Univ., Pullman, Wash. (Cited in Amman, et al, 1980).
Ruesink, W.G. 1976. Status of the systems approach to pest management. Ann. Rev. Ent. 21:27-44.
Safranyk, L., Shrimpton, D.M. and Whitney, H.S. 1975. An interpretation of the interaction between lodgepole pine, the mountain pine beetle and its associated blue stain fungi in western Canada. In Baumgartner, D.M., ed. Management of lodgepole pine ecosystems, Symp. Proc., pp. 406-428. Doop. Ext. Serv., Washington St. Univ., Pullman, Wash.
Samuelson, P.A. 1976. Economics of forestry in an evolving society. Econ. Inquiry. 14(4):466-492.
Schleussler, N. 1981. Transportation system economic analysis, Ketchikan Sale alternative #3B. On file in Flathead N.F. Supervisor's Office, USDA Forest Service, Kalispell, Mont.
. 1982a. Highway Engineer. Flathead N.F. Supervisor's Office. USDA Forest Service, Kalispell, Mont. Per. Com., 2/4/82.
. 1982b. Tel. Con., 2/16/82.
Schwennesen, D. 1980a. Agency rapped for OKing salvage sale. Missoulian (Mont.), 6/25/80. p. 29.
86
. 1980b. Environmental groups give F.S. notice of appeal. Missoulian (Mont.), 9/5/80.
. 1981a. Logging operation north of Glacier to expand. Missoulian (Mont.), 2/13/81. p. 17.
. 1981b. In the wake of the DEADLY pine beetle. Missoulian (Mont.), 2/15/82. pp. A-1 , A-3.
. 1981c. Forest's plan for leases questioned. Missoulian (Mont.), ̂ /12/81 .
. 1981d. Canadians plan more logging. Missoulian (Mont.), 5/14/81.
Stark, R.W. 1971. Integrated control, pest management, or population management? In Proc. Third Annual Northeastern Forest Insect Conference, p. 117. USDA Forest Service, Res. Paper NE-194, Northeastern Forest Exp. Sta.
Stern V.M. 1973. Economic thresholds. Ann. Rev. Ent. 18:259-280.
, Smith, R.F., van den Bosh, R. and Hagen, K.S. 1959. The Integrated control concept. Hllgardla. 29(2):81-101. (Cited in Norgaard, 1976).
Stoel, T. 1978. The National Forest Management Act. Environmental Law. 8:563-565.
Stoltenberg, C.H. 1959. An investment-opportunity approach to foresty programming. J. For. 57:547-550.
Turner, Jerry: 1982. Highway Engineer, Glacier View Ranger Dist., USDA Forest Service, Columbia Falls, Mont. Tel. Con. 2/16/82.
U.S. Comptroller General. 1976. Evaluation of a proposal to harvest and rehabilitate beetle-infested areas in three Oregon national forests. Gen. Accounting Off., CED-77-15, Washington, D.C.
USDA Forest Service. 1978. The Douglas-fir tussock moth; a synthesis. Tech. Bull. No. 1585. Washington, D.C.
. 1979. Programatic report for the treatment of the mountain pine beetle epidemic, Flathead National Forest. Environmental assessment report on file in the Flathead N.F. Supervisor's Office, Kalispell, Mont.
. 1980. North end salvage, Glacier View Ranger District. Environmental assessment report on file in the Flathead N.F. Supervisor's Office, Kalispell, Mont.
. 1980b North end salvage, Glacier View Ranger District. Supplement to environmental assessment report, 8/6/80. On file
87
in the Flathead N.F. Supervisor's Offcie, Kalispell, Mont.
. 1981a. FORPLAN coefficient documentation. On File in the Flathead N.F. Supervisor's Office, Kalispell, Mont.
. 1981b. Economic and Social Analysis; proposed policy, FSM 1970. Fed. Reg. 46(74): 22351-22558.
. 1981c. The Northern Region plan. August, Northern Region Office, Missoula, Mont.
. 198ld. Ketchikan Sale Prospectus, Appraisal Summary, and Sample Contract. On file at Glacier View Ranger Dist., Columbia Falls, Mont.
. 19B1e. Flathead large sale data computer print-out dated 11/5/81. On file in Programming, Planning and Budgeting, Northern Region Office, Missoula, Mont.
USDOC Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1979-1982. Surv. Cur. Bus. 59(9), 6 0 ( 1 ) , 6 0 ( 2 ) , 6 2 ( 2 ) .
USDOT Federal Highway Administration. 1982. Draft environmental impact statement for reconstruction of Montana Forest Highway Route 61, Flathead County Route 486, Flathead County (portion). Jan. 8. Denver. Federal Highway Administration.
Wellner, C.A. 1978. Management problems resulting from mountain pine beetles in lodgepole pine forests. In Kibbee, D.L., ed.. Theory and practice of mountain pine beetle management in lodgepole pine forests, pp. 9-15. Forest, Wildlife and Range Esp. Sta., Univ. of Id., Moscow, Id.
Wilson, George. 1981. Ketchikan Sale stand diagnosis and prescription. Worksheets on file at Glacier View Ranger Dist., USDA Forest Service, Columbia Falls, Mont.
. 1982. Silviculturalist, Glacier View Ranger Dist., USDA Forest Service, Columbia Falls, Mont. Per. Com., 2/5/82.